"Ethics" of Downloading Music?

[maassive]

It is the thousands of entry-level kids who lost their jobs because of the millions and millions of dollars that *illegal* downloading has caused. It is the unsigned bands that can't get a record label to sign them because the profit margin is so low.

Those exescutives are entitled to that money, regardless of how the company fares.

Gee I wonder why all the entry-level kids lost their jobs??? must be the internet

 

[HoobastankRules]

Here's my way of doing things. If I download something and find myself listening to it more than a few times, I'll go out and buy it. Beyond the fact that artists need income to continue to create music, I think if they're making music that I really like, they deserve some money from me.

I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with downloading per se, but I think if you only download music and never pay for it, that's a problem.

That's how I operate in general. I feel like it is a fair balance of living within our societal and governmental rules. The music industry is business. Bands are signed with the intention of making money, therefore stealing their work is stealing from a corporation. If you are downloading a non-signed, non-corporate band, then its all good in the hood. At the same time, I don't like buying CDs to find out they suck, so I check out the content of the albums I desire ahead of buying them. Its fair for me and its fair for the band.

 

[dr seuss]

i laugh so loud at most filesharing arguments.

'dude, why should i pay $20 for a cd?'

how the FUCK are you fucking downloading it??? is your internet connection free? do you download directly to your brain, or do you have some kind of a primitive computing machine?

LMFAO!!!! most people spend more on weed in 1 month than they do on CDs in a year. and most impoverished 'music lovers' are using faster machines with more storage to rip off music than the people who made the fucking music in the first place.

cunts.

 

[alasdairm]

i agree, seuss. i find there's a parallel here with the echo/spirit point i've made often in the gun threads.

i think a lot of people parrot the "they're not losing money as i would never buy it" because they can't be honest with themselves long enough to admit they simply want something for nothing and they're going to take it.

just my opinion of course.

alasdair

 

[Raw Evil]

I think the whole scene of "stealing" music is comparable to, say, a herion junkie driven to crime to pay for his addiction. (I'm using the term "junkie" very specifically here, if anyone has a problem, get over it)

Music lovers wouldn't be caught without their music, most of us can't stand to be in silence when we could be listening to music.
Junkies love the high, and want it every waking moment.

Some music lovers will steal music because they don't have the money to afford all the music they want and still lead a 'normal' life.
Some junkies are driven to crime to feed their addiction.


Starting to see the paralells?


For more light reading, this bloke has quite a strong opinion about society's obsession with music and the rebellious messages spewed by the music industry... (yes, these are all different pages on the site)

 

[massive]

Some people have may the impression that the "music business" has been around forever, but on a larger scale, people have been making music for millenia and will continue to.

No-one is forcing artists to *release* their music, but once they do *release* the music, the music is then *released*...

 

[[nl]mdma]

Let's get real on this one. I haven't bought a cd in over 5 years, and I sure would have bought some of the albums if p2p didn't exist.

There are some album on my harddrive that I really should and would like to buy, but I don't really want to free money for it, and even if I did, I wouldn't invest the 15 minutes needed to go out and buy it.

Is this wrong? Yeah, probably

But it's just really too easy; I just need to click about 3 times to have any music I want on my harddrive. By this, music has devaluated imho; 10 years ago, I would wait months before buying an album, and when I had gotten it, I'd play the cd for months. Now when I like a song I heard somewhere, I just download the whole discography of the artist and throw away every album if I don't like the first 20 seconds of it. Or if the quality is less than 320kbps.

However, strangely enough, this reasoning doesn't apply to other artforms: If I wanna see a movie, I just pay the 3 or 4 euro fee to rent it. And regarding software/games: I really don't care about the fate of this guy

 

[phish1970]

i download music p2p and i also have about 1000 cd's and 7000 records. do i feel guilty about downloading? no, because if i like i buy. i buy way more than i download.

 

[Dastrix Slogan]

Part of the problem (IMHO) is that downloading whether right or wrong has become the norm, its easier and quicker to get what you want right now (the way you have been doing it for the last oh 5 years?). The music industry has slept too long and reacted to slowly (by reacting I mean providing an online alternative, not the idoitic sueing their customers part). Online sites came too late and DRM coupled with a selection of music that is ALWAYS going to pale in comparison to what can be found on P2P communities will mean that this argument is going to be around for some time.

Me I have a simple rule, my format is digital, if I can buy it online I will, if its not available online then its P2P. Nothing like telling your customers you wont provide them the music they want and sue them for getting it eslewhere!

 

[Mystic Styles]

I actually saw an article a few days ago on Slashdot that says the percentage of people who buy legal downloads is going to pass the percentage of those who illegally download very very soon. I think in the coming years this filesharing problem will not be an issue. Most people would rather pay a dollar or two for a high quality, legal download than risk getting a poorly encoded mp3 of the net.

 

[physix]

You just simply don't get it. It is not Metallica who gets screwed from p2p sharing. It is the thousands of entry-level kids who lost their jobs because of the millions and millions of dollars that *illegal* downloading has caused. It is the unsigned bands that can't get a record label to sign them because the profit margin is so low.

but... this isn't the first time that technology
has rendered a business model useless, is
it....?


and there are always people who struggle
to maintain that existing model and try and
succeed using it... and people who go
"hrmm... that shit ain't workin' anymore...
how can i gain exposure/make money/etc
now in the environment that we are in...???"

i mean, i konw it sucks that some people, noble
tho' their heart might be, will have to go alittle
"hungry" because of the current business model
being obliterated...

but...

i mean...

doesn't this ALWAYS happen???

the music biz, for one, could probably take a cue
from the movie industry... i mean, i can just
as easily DL movies... my computer takes
roughly 5 or 6 hours to DL a 2-hr high quality
.avi movie... yet... i buy roughly 5 DVDs a month...
and belong to Columbia House DVD Club, where
I snag usually 2 DVDs a month or so...

now, granted, alot of the DVDs are basically
the equivelent of when the music industry
benefitted from going from tape to CD... it's
stuff that already has a substantial emotional
tie to me (ie TV series or an older movie)....
hell, I liked JaWS so much i had just a plain
DVD, the 15 year anniversary AND then recently
the 20 year anniversary...

why?

well, besides me being a prat, it's all the bonus
materials...

i mean, THE INCREDIBLES for example... 2 discs...
2 smaller featurettes... bloopers and outtakes...
alternate beginning... deleted scenes.. extra
"top secret files" of the characters...and like
4 or 5 "behind the scenes" type narratives, some
of them even providing massive info on the
actual business aspect of animation/3D/CGI/et al
and not to mention compatible with a DVD Rom for
even more stuff including some games and shit...
yeah... some things are trivial... but

I got that for $17.99 @ Amazon (and could have
probably got it for less at, say Wal-Mart or summat)

versus, say, the new Beck album (which I love, no doubt)
13 songs... i think i paid $15 for it... but i'll say $12 just
to be safe...

now, understandably, there's the new Beck album
you can now buy that DOES have a double disc, some
multimedia stuff, and readable material on a DVD Rom...
all for $19.99 in most places... now THAT is some sort
of deal, as far as i'm concerned.... but it has less extra
content for a higher price...

i know there's the dualDisc CD thing ... Bruce Springsteen
used it (and scored another #1 album) with the new
format...


for $13, you got the disc where one side is the CD of
13 tracks... and the other side is the DVD with 5 live
tracks fimed by filmmaker Danny Clinch, Bruce's own
extensive commentary, a video, and then the entire
album remastered in 5:1 surround...

now... I, for one, consider that a fuckin' deal... and i
think that more and more people just may be willing
to pay for music again when they are given basically
the equivelent of movieDVD's ample content-rich
material.

-shrug-

or maybe not.


unfortunately, tho' i feel sorry not for the big wigs or
the stars... or even the bands themselves, but for
those smaller employees who may be affected by
this shift in business, i can't help but feel that it's
all happened before... and people, if resourceful,
will rise to the challenge of a changing world...


adjust

or get ground to dust, i guess.


-shrug-



.::EDIT::.
GAWD DAMN that was longer than i expected!!!


sorry guys!

 

[massive]

Most people would rather pay a dollar or two for a high quality, legal download than risk getting a poorly encoded mp3 of the net.

Maybe so, I just hope the artists get a higher share of that one or two dollars. Which they should do as the un-nessesary middle men stop taking a piece of the artists pie.


But sharing will continue because. if I have 20 dollars to spend on some music, I'm going to let friends and like minded peeps have a copy in exchange for other music that I can't afford/

like i said, once music is released, the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[frizzantik]

making a copy of a copywritten work without permission is undoubtedly stealing. stealing means to obtain something without permission. it doesn't fit the definition of larceny though, which is what a lot of people think of as theft. larceny is obtaining physical property.

I think one main reasons why people don't really feel like downloading is theft is because there is nothing physical being obtained and no money is being made in the transaction. To the end user, the result is the same as if they heard the music on the radio or mtv, only they get to choose when to hear it.

most mp3s available on p2p networks are not CD quality.. 192 is the best i regularly see shared, and even 320 isn't perfect, though it's not going to be noticable unless you have the original for comparison. to some degree i think p2p networks function as the ultimate request line.. people can request a song and hear it soon after. if they like it they can keep requesting it. how it differs from existing radio is that the stations pay for the rights to play the songs. artists don't get this money though.

a lot of the music i listen to isn't even available on cd (and i don't have a record player), though there are some cds i ought to order. even then, i really hate ordering from a retailer cause so little of the money goes to the artist. the only cds i've bought in a long time are two that i got directly from the artist so I hope a few more bucks went their way.

downloading is also extremely convenient.. a few clicks and you can be listening to the tune you had in your head

as a musician i've thought about what I would do if/when i have music released. i don't currently have anything for sale so i don't mind people sharing my 192 tunes; i offer them on my website actually. I decided if i do release anything that I would continue to make the tunes available at 192 and if people want to buy them, so be it. Of course not every artist feels the same way.

in a way downloading kinda turns musicians back into street performers, where anybody can hear them play and those who want to donate, will.

 

[wizekrak]

Music has no intrinsic value.

People simply don't think it's worth the price demanded by industry executives. The only way to get people to buy instead of download is to offer it at a price that the market will accept. Youth make up the majority of the modern music market, and have a very limited income. If the price isn't lowered to a level that the youth can afford, or that they feel is reasonable (probably ~$5 a cd) they will continue to download. Of course there's no way in hell companies would lower the price to $5 a disc.

If you ask someone who makes a few thousand a year if they would pay $20 for a disc they may say yes but I doubt they'll buy more than a few a year.

The odds of recouping the cost to create and album and fund a tour would be low if the market were allowed to stabilize itself and drive down the price. It seems that price fixing is necessary for the survival of the industry. The only way for it to survive in it's current form is to scale back production costs musicians salaries and the like. Of course no one wants to take a pay cut.

So it seems that the trend towards the "one good song on a disc full of crap" will continue. With the advent of legal downloading (itunes, etc) expect to see the death of "the album" in the next 25 years while exec's hire musicians on a per single basis.

Of course there will be those who continue to produce worthwhile full length's worth many a listen, but for the 99% who just get lucky with one good song it's the end of the line.

Expect to see .wav files (cd quality) in the next 5 to 10 years as connection speeds and storage drives increase (you can fit over 40cd's on an ipod without loss).

The industry will have to adapt to survive amid the wash of free files. They'll make it but the bottom line will suffer.

Bottom line: downloading is great for music, but terrifying for the music industry

 

[physix]

most mp3s available on p2p networks are not CD quality.. 192 is the best i regularly see shared, and even 320 isn't perfect, though it's not going to be noticable unless you have the original for comparison.

you can hear it in the highs, sometimes... that
thin sorta whispy feel to, say, high end guitar chords
or hi hats...

blech!

what's worse, tho, is when you get a 320 kpbs song
and it sounds like a 96 kpbs song... then you realize
"man, i bet some people think they can re-encode a
96kpbs song into a 320 kpbs song and it will improve
the sound quality...."

double blech!

 

[dr seuss]

downloading is also extremely convenient.. a few clicks and you can be listening to the tune you had in your head

yep - and legal downloading is therefore just as convenient! there are loads of sites out there where people can download FLAC or other high-quality formats for next to nothing. you can hear that track in your head for like $2, less than most people spend on milk in a week.

as a musician i've thought about what I would do if/when i have music released. i don't currently have anything for sale so i don't mind people sharing my 192 tunes; i offer them on my website actually. I decided if i do release anything that I would continue to make the tunes available at 192 and if people want to buy them, so be it. Of course not every artist feels the same way.

my position is this:

if i meet you, see you at a gig, or if you ask me nicely, i will send you / give you music for free. this is because i believe music is not necessarily a commercial thing, and because i love to share music with friends and good people and there's no way i'd charge them for it. however...

in a way downloading kinda turns musicians back into street performers, where anybody can hear them play and those who want to donate, will.

this is all well and good in principle. and in fact it's how many musicians in the EDM scene operate anyway - few 'listeners' buy artist albums, for example... think about how many people pay $10 to get into a club to see [artist x] and then think about how many of those people will download [artist x]s album whilst moaning about the price.

here's a rant i posted somewhere else about this:

1. i love music and i love to share music.

if you know me, or bump into me at a party, or ask me nicely, i will send you some music for free. this is partially because i believe music is more than money and partially because i like to share my music with people. i do not think music should ever be a strictly commercial experience.

2. otherwise please please please buy the fucking cd.

most people spend more on weed in 2 weeks than on CDs in a year. under a tenner is not an extravagant amount - i fucking know it's not because you're already paying double that monthly just to download stuff with your uberfast broadband and your shiny PC. you've probably got more processing power and more storage to run soulseek than i've got to make music with, so don't come off all 'ooh it's too expensive'.

people think that artists are just being pampered prima-donna arseholes. this is genuinely, patently not the case for the majority of artists involved (well, the majority i've met), for reasons thusly:

electronic music costs money to make. looking to my right i see that with PC, soundcard, midi controller, basic synth, monitors, pedals, instruments etc. i need to insure my (very basic) setup for well over £3,000, and that's not even counting my violin. that money didn't come from nowhere. it came from shitty jobs and going without luxuries - luxuries, for example, like buying new CDs!!! i paid for all of my equipment (with one exception - thanks to my uncle for a free soundcraft series 700B - legend!) and i'm still paying for it - insurance is extra ya know, plus of course with smaller labels i'm actually paying some of the production costs. it's taken me years to accumulate what i need to make this music...

in 20 minutes time i'm going into a fucking accountant's office to be patronised by number-crunching cretins and shuffle papers around like some glorified stationery-cupboard-growth, sitting in a non-airconditioned hellhole with massive open windows and suffering from fucking insane hayfever... just to make my music.

and you know what?

i'm over the moon. i'm happier than ever. and most importantly, any money i do make back from my album will go straight back into new studio equipment.

i'm not trying to get £16.99 from each and every HMV customer and suing thousands of p2p users. i'm not drinking champagne in flash hotel rooms and bitching about how a gold album isn't good enough and the astoria isn't big enough. if i make any money i'm going to buy new toys to make new tunes to release so that (hopefully) someone somewhere enjoys them. and in fact so are most artists... in our various genres record sales are often far from explosive... plus of course other people - the record label, mastering people, graphic artists - have put a shitload of work and money into it as well.

have i downloaded in the past? yes. do i feel bad? yes. have i deleted files? yes. have i bought CD copies of tracks i have downloaded? yes. am i a money-grabbing arsehole who's only interested in making cash?

you decide...

 

[dr seuss]

the problem with filesharing is like this: my friend Distortion Orchestra, as talented and lovely a man as you could find in any scene, had his 2nd album signed to a new label.

the minute - i shit you not - some promos were sent out, some fuckhole DJ sent a copy to MYCEL who promptly did his uber-democratic (8)) thing and released it to the world.

now Distortion Orchestra is no fucking sellout. he's been playing gigs - often for free - for nearly a decade. he brings life soul and love to any party and has invested his whole fucking life in his music.

now suddenly because some untalented cretin DJ wants to look big in front of his online friends, the album is available for everyone to download. the label - which was never trying to make money anyway, just cover their costs - eventually folded.

now who's the winner? who's 'stickin' it to the man!'? who's the bad boy who's screwing the corporate machine? who's the internet freedom fighter holding the beacon for radical information sharing?

not fucking MYCEL.

he's just a cunt, pure and simple.

 

[wizekrak]

It's getting the most you can with the least amount of time/money

 

[massive]

the minute - i shit you not - some promos were sent out, some fuckhole DJ sent a copy to MYCEL who promptly did his uber-democratic (8)) thing and released it to the world.

Yeah you can have a copy because your really cool, but we dont like you so you have to pay us.

Maybe the label was losing the music sending out promos to their uber-select-elite friends.8)

 

[tinrib]

Yeah you can have a copy because your really cool, but we dont like you so you have to pay us.

Maybe the label was losing the music sending out promos to their uber-select-elite friends.8)

lol, do you have any idea how the music industry works??!!!!

wtf!!!


Lets all live in your world where musicians send all their music to everyone for free and we can all buy homes and food with buttons.



Re-read Suess's thread ffs maybe it'll sink in.