"Ethics" of Downloading Music?

they didnt give away shit. they ALLOWED stuff to be taped....and it turn it was passed around, given away, etc. And it made them fuckin millionaires! but nevermind that right? lets just forget that they wouln't even have the clout they do if it weren't for bootlegs. 8(

And you act as if they gave this shit away recently...hell even in the last decade. They 'allowed' bootlegs in Metallicas's PR period...thats 'pre-rich'. Then suddenly they become huge and we're all thieves and it's a matter befitting Congress to debate? horseshit.

so why am I mad at them? yes....my main problem is with who really benefits from cds, price-fixing, and paying for big labels' mistakes. but Lars and Metallica are jack-asses because they moronically took up that cause as their own. And for their inability to see that supporting the major labels and the RIAA has fuck all to do with paying an artist for their work. And for being a hypocrite and an ingrate....turning on the system that made them.

And to be honest....for makin shit music to boot. so there. :p
 
let's be clear, first of all - since they are sanctioned recordings they aren't 'bootlegs.' secondly, they still allow taping. far after their 'PR' period. thirdly, whether or not you comprehend this, by letting you tape/trade they are giving away something - not a hard concept to understand for most.

hell, you act like you know what you're talking about. what assholes they are, letting their fans do that and then expecting someone to actually buy something. i doubt there are any bands that are actually signed to a label that have a less restrictive policy on fan taping.

again, cmon - get real. focus your anger where it belongs.

here's their current policy:

Taken directly from http://www.metallica.com/metdotcom/help/copyright_trademark.html

Can I record concerts?
Yes, you can record concerts for your own personal use, but we ask that you please not trade, donate, or barter the recordings in exchange for other goods or money. As a fan, you know that Metallica is very particular about the quality of their recordings and anything with their name on it. This standard of quality is lost when the band's name is used and recordings are distributed without their permission. However, before you record any concert, check with the venue. Recording may be prohibited at certain venues and it is up to you to determine this.


in other words, feel free to trade as long as you don't profit from it. those assholes.
 
I would say:
feel free to trade as long as you don't profit from it.
Click to expand...
directly contradicts his attacks on p2p and the congressional hearings. when's the last time you heard of someone profitting from sharing on napster/kazaa/soulseek michael?

not a hard concept to understand eh michael?
 
so despite what you...or their current website says...his/their actions contradict that.


those asshole kids in whatever-the -fuck-U that have been convicted of sharing files and prosecuted and fined, I'm sure they profited greatly fromt that right? 8( I'm sure Lars and the RIAA wouldn't have gone after them if they hadn't right? I'm sure congress wouldn't have been involved if they were only cases of college level file-sharing rather than some international piracy ring to bleed the pockets of the poor artists right? what about the kids man....the kids....? 8(
 
and to be honest:

and then expecting someone to actually buy something.
Click to expand...

their fans DID. and continue to. again...thats what made them. as if p2p has really hurt their careers. judgin' by their bank accounts i'd dare say it didn't hurt em'.

call me crazy.
 
ChemicalOne said:
I would say: directly contradicts his attacks on p2p and the congressional hearings. when's the last time you heard of someone profitting from sharing on napster/kazaa/soulseek michael?

not a hard concept to understand eh michael?
Click to expand...

are you capable of distinguishing a commercial recording from a non-commercial one? you're free to trade any of those live recordings via any medium you wish. that contradicts what? you still have yet to explain how metallica is greedy because they expected someone to buy an album. feel free to be purposefully obtuse a while longer though, why don't you.

as for self righteousness - notice that i am not the one arguing that i am entitled to something. also notice it didn't take me 3 posts in a row to say it.
 
and you've yet to show me how file-sharing assholes have hurt this poor tortured artist...number of posts not-withstanding.
 
i never said they did nor will i try; this is outside of the scope of my arguement. i will reiterate the point i have made every time this topic comes up: i think people should respect an artist's right to control what they want done with their work. you are also never going to convince me that a band that lets their fans tape/trade are greedy for expecting them to shell out for an album here and there.
 
i never said they did nor will i try; this is outside of the scope of my arguement.
Click to expand...

nice cop-out. but while it MAY(and i stress may) apply to you...this is the core of their argument. and what i call bullshit on.

and you'll never convince me that file-sharing probably hasn't furthered these artists career in the long-run.

so where does that leave us?
 
um, i knew who lars was by about 1982-3, and i guarantee you i never heard a 'bootleg' (i only knew what one was because of the episode of what's happening! that the doobie brothers were guests on) at the time. actually i think i can speak for the vast majority of the people i knew at the time - i doubt any of them have ever heard, even to this day, any live metallica that wasn't officially released unless they bought a ticket and went to the show. frankly i find the notion that 'bootlegging' made them famous to be completely ludicrous - but that's beside the point. as for copping out, you have managed to blather on and on without actually addressing my original point: why is it that a band that has freely allowed that much trading of their music 'greedy' for expecting someone to pay for an album here and there?

at this point i'm beginning to wonder if you have bothered to read any of my posts. please don't bother responding to this one unless you want to answer that question; i'm sure we've managed to bore more people besides myself here.
 
Originally posted by michael
my original point: why is it that a band that has freely allowed that much trading of their music 'greedy' for expecting someone to pay for an album here and there?
Click to expand...

maybe not really greedy, but how fucking stupid is it appearing as the record industry whining bitch pinup. way to alienate half your audience!

i think people should respect an artist's right to control what they want done with their work
Click to expand...

I fully agree with this, thats why you will find i have absouletly NO music from metallica and I also recommend everyone else to immediately get rid off all metallica mp3s and music ;)
 
ChemicalOne said:
and to be honest:



their fans DID. and continue to. again...thats what made them. as if p2p has really hurt their careers. judgin' by their bank accounts i'd dare say it didn't hurt em'.

call me crazy.
Click to expand...

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.

The fans didn't make Metallica. Do you know how HARD it is to write a song as good as Metallica, or just even a song in general? Now, imagining working on that for months and months, if not years, while investing thousands upon thousands of dollars. HOW THE FUCK would you feel if all that crwativity, hard work, blood sweat and tears was flushed down the drain and not rewarded financially because of illegal downloading?

Also, the title of this post relates to "ethics", but if we were to discuss legal ramifications, you wouldn't have any legs to stand on, either.
 
Ethics??

How fucking ethical is the fact that the top 5 executives at Warner Music recieved more than $21 million in pay last year, compared to 7$ income? (for the whole company):X:X :X
 
ChemicalOne said:
nice cop-out. but while it MAY(and i stress may) apply to you...this is the core of their argument. and what i call bullshit on.

and you'll never convince me that file-sharing probably hasn't furthered these artists career in the long-run.

so where does that leave us?
Click to expand...

Mike Doughty, former lead singer of the now-defunct band Soul Coughing, gave a great Q&A session about p2p and file-sharing last week at Harvard Law, a Q&A session which is very pro-artist. I will try to find it.

Essentially, the core of the argument, both ethically and legally, is one of CREATIVITY. It is inherently immoral and illegal to steal someone's creative product.
 
maassive said:
Ethics??

How fucking ethical is the fact that the top 5 executives at Warner Music recieved more than $21 million in pay last year, compared to 7$ income? (for the whole company):X:X :X
Click to expand...

That is a contract issue. Those exescutives are entitled to that money, regardless of how the company fares.
 
why is it that a band that has freely allowed that much trading of their music 'greedy' for expecting someone to pay for an album here and there?
Click to expand...

first off i never called them 'greedy'...if you wanna nitpick. you put that word in my mouth. second...people do buy their albums....and considerably more than 'here and there'...judging by their sales even in the post-p2p era. I won't quite obviously...but i wouldn't download it either...except maybe to share it just out of spite. :p that answer your question?



but how fucking stupid is it appearing as the record industry whining bitch pinup.
Click to expand...

much more to the point.

as for Soundtrack....there are tons of bands signed everyday. too many really. which is why the record labels feel the need to finance their failures by artificially fixing the price of cds on their sucesses. if they worried more about signing good bands rather than the next band that 'sounds like' that other hit band....or who has a 'catchy new single', their profit margin would probably be higher, tho' i somehow doubt it's really that low now.

tho i would be interested in reading that q&a.

also...

That is a contract issue. Those exescutives are entitled to that money, regardless of how the company fares
Click to expand...

but as you said....the title says 'ethics'. not contract issues.

really....which is more un-ethical? my broke-ass illegally downloading for personal use and me actually supporting bands live? or multi-millionaire execs trying to jail/fine me for not padding their bank accounts when they have zero creative input in the process either?

when that artist poors his blood,sweat tears, yada yada and i support them live....they actually recieve a far greater margin of the profits anyways. the labels collect nearly all of cd sales.
 
ChemicalOne said:
second...people do buy their albums....and considerably more than 'here and there'...j
Click to expand...

while you did not actually use the word 'greedy,' what you said was "...they are so concerned with bleeding every penny..." the implication is pretty clear. i didn't say people didn't buy their albums; i said that it perhaps is really not so much to ask that someone buys an album here and there when there's more metallica freely available than there is for the vast majority of bands.
 
ChemicalOne said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well said - agree 100%. I've supported the music industry through buying their product over many years. I've bought thousands, of vinyl, cd's and cassettes. Some of these I've kept, some I've lost or had stolen (including my whole cd collection on the early 90's) and some I've sold for a fraction of the original price. Much of what I've bought has been disappointing - countless albums have had only 2 or 3 decent tracks on them, and others have been unredeemably bad. And many that I may have liked at first have not stood the test of time. But NOT ONCE have I ever complained or asked for a refund from the retailer, the artist or the record label who have profited from my purchase of their product which has proved disappointing. (And yet if I'd bought a pair of shoes which fell to bits after three weeks, you can bet your life I'd take them back.)

I imagine that I'm just one of millions of music punters that have paid for overpriced, sub-standard product, and done nothing about it. The music industry really have had it all their own way for so long, so I have absolutely no sympathy at all for their miserable stance on downloading and sharing music. Many years ago, they tried to persuade us that 'Home taping is killing music'. But people still carried on taping records and people kept on making music. What they really meant was 'home taping is killing our profits' and yet people still kept buying music and the music companies continued to prosper. The technology these days is different but the same principles still apply. People will still make music, others will buy it, and the industry will still make profits.

As for the other point, technology has not only made it more easy to copy music, it has also made music a lot easier to produce and to distribute, which means there's a lot more being made these days, which means there's a lot more rubbish around. It doesn't necessarily follow that there's also a lot more quality around too, since the easier it is to make, the more likely it is that people with little talent or imagination will be churning out crap. And they are. 'over-saturation of shit' - exactly.

And the point about supporting bands live is a good one. Do you wonder why the likes of Madonna and U2 - who obviously make millions from album sales alone - still like to go out on the road? Because they don't have to share the profits they generate from playing live with their record companies, that's why. And that applies as much to artists at the bottom of the pile as to those at the top. So keep downloading music, but go see the artists you like as much as you can - though preferably those that need supporting, rather than the likes of Madonna and U2!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top