They say that the future of music business is on the internet. While that may well be true, I'm not excited about it at all. I don't pay to download music because I want to have the physical cd/lp/whatever in my hands, admire all the neat cover artwork, read the lyrics and possible additional info from the booklet etc. I also haven't pirated music in ages because I want to support all the good musicians for their hard work.
However, earlier today I decided to buy a bunch of songs by a certain band from the internet. I could have bought all their records instead, but the truth is that, having heard the albums before, I have only enjoyed about half of the songs on them. So I thought I'd pick only the good songs and make a compilation cd of those myself.
After browsing through several internet music stores I came across a place that had all of their albums for sale/download. Unfortunately, that place had their own system that requires customers to download an iTunes-type program through which the music is purchased. After paying for the music, the customers can burn the songs on a cd or transfer them onto an mp3 player. But they also have to use the program to listen to the tracks they've purchased. You don't get actual MP3 or WMA files, all the music you've paid for is only accessible through the program. I thought the system was ridiculous, but decided to go for it because there indeed seemed to be the option to burn the songs on a cd.
Well, that didn't work, the burning process just froze right at the beginning and I had to force my cd drive open to get the cd out. I sent an angry email to the store in frustration after having tried to burn the cd several times without success. If they come up with a solution then everything is fine and I'm happy when I get my music on a cd. But if nothing can be done, I'm left with either recording the tracks from the store's own player and saving them as MP3s or downloading the songs from illegal websites. Because technically that wouldn't be illegal as I've paid for the tracks already... right?
What do you guys think of such means to sell music and do you think it's the way to go? Personally, I'll stick to buying cds as I'm such an old fashioned crazy old geezer!
I agree, it's not like I'd buy a painting via internet and only use in digital form. I'd never buy mp3 from the internet, getting additiong to my penis enlarging cd collection the exceeds several houndred is the thing for me. And most of the cds wouldn't be so great without the boxes and the leaflets. Just, stop doing them, and I'll resolve to stealing them from somewhere, but I don't think they'll ever go internet only.
I buy music from amazon's download service if the cd is on there, if it isn't I usually just give up and I won't look somewhere else. Jess buys things off of iTunes mostly and sometimes off of Amazon, she has the ipod so it's mostly iTunes.
My physical cds just go into my multi-cd case which means I have to do away with the plastic case anyway, if I want lyrics I just look on the internet and if I really want the album art I guess I can look at that on the internet too or have it automatically downloaded... But I don't see no album art as an automatic fail for downloading music off the internet.
Also, as per your situation, what service was it you used? That sounds crap to have to use their music player. You have to use a small downloader application for Amazon but it's really not that big a deal and is like 200kb. I guess that's why I don't use iTunes for downloading music, it feels too big and bulky when I just want a tiny program that plays mp3s and sits at the top of my window and is almost totally hidden.
Unfortunately, I just can't be bothered to buy CDs or buy for download as it's alot simpler and easier to just download the songs for free.. I understand that this isn't morally or ethically right etc. but I can't get myself to feel compassionate. The only cd I've bought the last 7-8 years is the "new" Symphony X album, but only after downloading it first.
Buying music through Internet (I mean buying CD) give to me access to the kind of music I love and I can't find in the supermarket.
In France music is sold principally in supermarket as it was food and you can find only very commercial one.
Except if your are living in a big city with a virgin store or a fnac( its like virgin store) you don't have a lot of choice and internet is the only way to order music.
Internet also give access to small bands or artists which may sell directly their music without have been signed by a major.
I knew my favorites bands thanks to internet, and I have never heard one of their titles on the radio.
Concerning the difference between buying a song or a CD I have no problem to just buy a song as long as there is no drm on it preventing me to burn my own CD or listening it to different support.
I have many problems with dvd legally bought but who don't want to play on my computer (I have no TV) and I have to rip them befor being able to watch the movie :(.
Thanks to internet I can discover artists from different countries I had never known by the traditional distribution way.
No.
It is a type of DRM this...
I also like to have freedom, so I usually buy the whole CDs. If I want something that I know won't stand the test of time, youtube is there to give me pleasure... And actually from my end youtube is NOT illegal! So I'm fine there!
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 07/05/2008 14:51:17
Also, as per your situation, what service was it you used?
It's (apparently) one of the few "big" Finnish download services (NetAnttila (http://download.netanttila.com/), Finnish site only) and also the only one I've seen that makes the customers to install their own music player. There are of course websites where you just select the music you want to buy, pay for it and are given a download link to the files. And that's how it should be, too. I don't understand why they have seen all the effort to set up a system that just makes things more difficult for the customers. I want to be able to listen to all my music on only one player, goddammit!!
EDIT: heh, I'm actually starting to regret I saw all the effort to buy/download those songs, I just should have bought the albums and live with the less good songs!
I do buy some music off the net, but never if there's a "protective" system like that. I like flexible files. Physical CD's I'm not very interested in anymore, all the plastic takes up so much space. I've put most of my collections in big cases, throwing the plastic out - same with most of my DVD's. Having the entire music collection on disk is much more convenient. With cover "art", it's no big deal. Most of it isn't particularly pretty anyway, and as written above, you can look at it on the net. I guess the only thing missing is the smell... This solution is better for the environment too, instead of ordering plastic and aluminium which are transported halfway across the planet in big B-52 planes.
I do like to pay for the music, to support the artists, and besides I have a job and can afford it. Back when I was a poor student I might have broken that rule, though.
I never buy albums online, I much prefer the physical releases.
HOWEVER I have been known to pay to download a single song or two in iTunes - usually rare b-sides or whatever. I could download them for free, sure, but I feel warm and tingly inside for having contributed to the artist. This is especially true of new, indie or up and coming bands who probably need the support.
However, after that I see no moral or ethical problem with removing any DRMy type protection for my own use.
Quote from: Neil Dnuma on Wed 07/05/2008 16:21:46
I do like to pay for the music, to support the artists, and besides I have a job and can afford it. Back when I was a poor student I might have broken that rule, though.
Good point.. If I were to buy all the music I've downloaded, I'd be in a huge debt.. I really can't afford buying music without having to cut down on other things.
One question I often ask to myself before buying a CD is
"Do you like to see this band on stage?"
If the answer is yes, most of the time I buy the CD.
The real place for an artist is on stage, isn't it?
CD must be a kind of reminder of what they really play.
It's true that CD is also a way to discover an artist, so what is first: egg or chicken?
I've never illegally downloaded music from the internet.
I've also never bought music downloads either, but that's only because I still haven't seen a service that offers anything other than what I can already get from ripping a CD that I've bought myself. Plus, at least then I can control the quality of the rip.
It's a little bit more expensive to buy an actually CD, sure, but the difference in price is minimal.
Some musicians/producers are already starting to produce MP3-friendly mixes of their output, to compensate for the formats shortcomings, so I guess that's a step in the right direction.
But the majority of back-catalog stuff is just bog-standard CD rips.
So I would then presume they'd sell them in extensions better than regular mp3? I read in this hifi magazine where they made a blind test of speakers, players and stuff, that most of the people actually did find the original vinyl the best. I've got loads of vinyls myself, and nothing really beats the feeling of putting one in, dropping the needle and listening to the first cracks. Well, if I were to pay for digital format, I think it should be at least .flac. Not that with my equipment it would make a difference, but damn if there's even some loss, to me it would mean buying a cut out. Sure it's smaller, but still.
I buy stuff off Itunes all the time.
The main problem I see with it that you can't return it or sell it on eBay if you decide you don't like it.
Then again, websites like Last.fm let you sample everything to hell before you've handed over a penny so the chances of buying music you don't like are acrually quite slim.
I usually do download for free. Why by the cow when the milk is free I say. The only CD albums I do buy are Iron Maiden or anything related to them. Also Helloween I sometimes buy if it's really good - which reminds me that I need to buy Gambling With The Devil (best Helloween album since Keeper Part 1 &2).
I never bought any music online, because I want something tangible. (I do buy rare stuff at online stores though.)
I'm still waiting for some kind of system where you pay for the royalties and get a license to get it in other media at cost price. Why should I buy the CD if I already have it in vinyl? I consider it legal to download an album for free which I have on vinyl - I ripped all my CD's as well.
Yes, I have been a Napster subscriber for almost 3 years now.
You can stream all the music you like plus download albums and tracks for a price. I have bought quite a few albums off of Napster and then am allowed to back them up on a CD.
It is a great service, even though i don't like the price increase from $9.99 a month to $12.99 a month.
I don't like paying to download music. It isn't really that I'm cheap, it's just that there's something about paying for something that you don't really get to call yours that turns me off. When I put money out for something, I want a product. I want a physical thing I can hold up and say, "I paid for this." The whole digital-consumer age leaves me kind of high and dry, especially when so many things are available via the internet for free.
I don't pay for music downloads because I don't like the idea of paying to download something which has exactly the same end result as downloading it illegally, so you have little to show for your purchase. In fact, buying online involves going through the paying system and possibly having a less flexible music format. When commercial products are more cumbersome than their pirated counterparts (copy protection in games is another example) I will opt for the pirated version.
In fact I don't pirate music anymore, at least through p2p. I like to have a physical product sitting on my shelf and to act as a kind of receipt to show that I like the artist enough to pay. If it's too expensive I'll just take the mp3s from friends.
I know not paying for music is wrong and it feels bad, but seeing millions of others amass large collections while I'm throwing my money away feels worse.
I would buy music online; in fact I prefer that to buying CDs unless I were a great fan and MUST have the physical CD to show on my shelf. With all the CDs I do buy, I usually rip them to mp3 anyway and then chuck the CD aside. So I'd rather buy mp3s straight.
Except that here where I live, there are very few online music stores, and those that do exist don't sell the music that I listen to.
So in the end, I do download mp3s - entire albums even - but I see it as a "try before you buy" policy. And I'm not apologetic about that. My music taste is generally not mainstream and it's not always easy to get it. My music collection is a mishmash of purchased and downloaded mp3s. My reasoning is, if I didn't buy it, I'm not going to buy it anyway so nothing's lost to anyone.
My only exception to this rule are the imported albums which, I feel, are far too expensive. Seriously, I don't think it's worth paying more than triple the usual price of a CD for an import. I've been known to fork out US$50 over for an imported Japanese CD, and then weeks later saw a much cheaper (US$15) local edition of the same album. I mean come on, how much does it cost to import a CD?? Small little piece of plastic. You could stuff gazillions of those on a container ship. And Japan isn't even very far away from Singapore. That was the last imported CD I bought.
If there were online stores selling Japanese mp3s, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.
The local record store is really flexible. I've only found one album they couldn't provide/order. That was Annie in Wonderland by Annie Haslam, which was apparently out everywhere, couldn't even find it on the internet. I've got it now though \o/ Anyway, my friend ordered Keiko Matsui's album with a live DVD as bonus, and didn't pay any extra for it. So I really guess these guys take in less profit from imports to keep the customers. I don't complain, I get every 11th album free, this year it might just be Marillion's new ;)
Brief update on my situation;
I finally managed to burn the songs I on a cd! I had to install the player on another computer and transfer the songs there. The player uses a TID code system to identify its users, and one TID code works on three (3) different systems. I guess the player just doesn't like external cd drives... But eh, I'm happy now, I just think I'm never going to use their system again.
Meanwhile, I still haven't received a word back from the tech support. Also,
Quote from: skuttleman on Wed 07/05/2008 21:20:18
I don't like paying to download music. It isn't really that I'm cheap, it's just that there's something about paying for something that you don't really get to call yours that turns me off. When I put money out for something, I want a product. I want a physical thing I can hold up and say, "I paid for this." The whole digital-consumer age leaves me kind of high and dry, especially when so many things are available via the internet for free.
My thoughts exactly. Also also,
Quote from: Tuomas on Wed 07/05/2008 17:48:42
I've got loads of vinyls myself, and nothing really beats the feeling of putting one in, dropping the needle and listening to the first cracks.
Vinyls for the win!
I think I'm close to that idea as well!
And I know you thought "Oh nikolas posted. Here we go again! ;D"
I like having the physical copy as well!
Problem with downloads is that:
a. You get MTV playing music. Other channels as well. I've paid for my tv license, so it's legal to watch MTV, OF COURSE!
b. You get e-bbc or whatever it's called! I've paid for my tv license so it's legal to watch! OF COURSE!
c. You get youtube! I've paid for my tv license... blah blah
d. You get tv-links, 14.alluc, etc. I've paid for my license... blah blah..
wait... if all the above ARE in fact legal, where is the problem in me:
e. You exchange with a friend an mp3.
?
It's weird and confusing.
Technically anything you download without paying is illegal, piracy, stealing, blah blah :P! I can understand that, and respect that as well!
The arguemnt (to what Auriond said for example) is one: If you don't plan on buying, then you do know that you don't really "need" the track. It happens all the time. Not all music is amazing, but it might be catchy for 10-20 days... Solution? Certainly not buy the fucking album! Ridiculous! Buy the single? What for? To listen to a track?
And this is where things get hugely complicated:
*************
On the one corner, the hugely legal guy!
Everything you download bellongs to someone! Someone bothered, someone carred, someone took the time to make this happen, tallent, effort, sweat, knowledge, experience. Why would anyone want to take advantage of this for free? (re: because it's already free with radio and TV! D'OH!)
On the other corner, the normal fellow!
So what? Problem is that music is vomited anyway. Most pop (most: 95% or whatever depending on your definition. I live of music, can't have a definition) is rubbish! It is. whyt pay for it? just listen to it, make your life easier. Why wait for MTV to put the tracks on, when you have youtube or P2P?
************************
Have I donwloaded tracks for free?
Yes I have. 90% were tracks that I also have on CDs, due to boredom to make them into mp3s! (which on the legal side of things is also illegal! :p ridiculous but anyways).
The other 10% is tracks I've known for all my life. mmm mmm mmm mmm (crash test dummies), offsptring, madness and other stuff that nobody cares about really. And Mika as well! (kinoko likes him as well ;D)
Are you a pirate?
Hmm... could be... I am. But very little! Really, if anyone checks the whole of my hard disks for mp3s/movies/etc, and charge me full price for the whole bunch, I'll end up paying $200! SO WHAT??!!??!
DRM gets on my nerves!
Petteri: why on earth did you use THAT website? If it wasn't on other websites it means its' "small", thus you could actually contact the band(s) straight and resolve this! :) Really!
I won't stop copying my tracks from my computer to my CDs and to my car tapes and to my mp3 player! NO! I refuse to do that, simply because it's within my rights! iTunes my arse! :@
_________________________________________
The other side:
If you check my website on the "classical" you'll notice 4-5 tracks in there, for download. I have NO PLANS of getting them out!
But I have plans of starting selling my music in CDs!
We'll see how it goes! :) But still I don't want to refuse people listening to my music, whenver, wherever, whatevre (even if I can't really compare to commercial pop music, and it's lame eitherway)
Sorry for the long post!
QuoteI've never illegally downloaded music from the internet.
I've always illegally downloaded music from the internet.
Not in last few years though: I listen to trance, that has gone totally downwards and there's nothing to download. Also, we have youtube... which has almost any song I want to listen.
Anyway, I don't find music piracy being a crime. If my paid money doesn't let musician buy another Ferrari in addition to last three (s)he has, who cares?
But if my personal contribution is critical to his/her life - I mean, (s)he's not making much money, well, that's a shitty musician. Better get a REAL job!
Actually, South Park episode
Christian Rock Hard wraps subject up pretty well.
I don't listen to music very often, unless it's mine or I'm in the mood for some AC/DC.
I'd rather own the actual CD then own an mp3. The whole idea of owning an mp3 just seems totally absurd to me. It's just not the same anyway.
I guess it's kind of like playing NES roms for free on the computer, but buying the same games for the Wii. I enjoy them more through an actual console on the TV - I'm a geezer too, Pete.
I've played the original Mario Bros. on the Wii more than I've EVER played it on the computer - it's just different.
Whenever I feel like listening to a song that I thought of and haven't heard in a long time, I download through LimeWire and that's it. I think that's perfectly fine. I'm not sitting there all night downloading every song under the midnight sky and burning CDs/copying to my mp3 player - which only consists of my music (with the exception of a handful of "real" songs) and that I only listen to while I go to sleep at night.
--Snake
Quote from: InCreator on Thu 08/05/2008 17:06:19But if my personal contribution is critical to his/her life - I mean, (s)he's not making much money, well, that's a shitty musician. Better get a REAL job!
That's a little unfair to the hundreds of unsigned indie musicians out there.... some of them are REALLY good, and are not popular or famous simply because they are unsigned. And there are many reasons why they might be unsigned... not just because they're bad.
Quote from: InCreator on Thu 08/05/2008 17:06:19
Anyway, I don't find music piracy being a crime. If my paid money doesn't let musician buy another Ferrari in addition to last three (s)he has, who cares?
But if my personal contribution is critical to his/her life - I mean, (s)he's not making much money, well, that's a shitty musician. Better get a REAL job!
That's SO full of bullshit!
So insulting for SO MANY people!
But I promised that I wouldn't go down that road again to try and explain. There are one too many threads about this same thing.
Hey, I consider myself an indie musician too!
But I'm referring to the genres I actually listen here!
I think that there's quite a large gap between - let's say The Beatles and <insert random dj name who said one day 'hey, I could do it'>. One is quality music, other simply a pop hit to fill radios for 2 weeks. After which, no one cares anymore.
I would gladly pay for a concert, for example. But mp3?
We have radio. Music channels on TV. All free. Don't forget Youtube and hundreds of web radio stations, giving free music from classic to jungle.
In clubs, for the price of one album (with 2-3 good tracks and loads of fillers just to get that album done), you have a DJ offering a mixing service, you get good sound system from which to listen, and whole load of various good tracks from different musicians.
With all this existing, paying for a single mp3 sounds stupid.
From my viewpoint. Yeah, it can be sad for a musician. But I simply don't care. I DO have legal CD's at home, problem is - I never care to use them. It's a hassle to find the box, open it, insert it. I can't carry it in my walkman unless I spend hours to convert them to mp3, etc. Finding a CD and getting music to play takes 5 minutes. As much as downloading from P2P. Only that I don't have to get up and comb through my CDs...
With 6 billion people on the planet, chances of musician still selling enough to fill his desire are quite good. I'm NOT that important, neither is my money.
But for some quality stuff, even I would buy all legally. Like classic music or Beatles or whatever of the level. Only on CD's, not MP3s.
Coming back to trance, i find it an insult to charge money of the crap artists produce after 1999. They totally mutilated and humiliated whole genre.
MP3, despite technical parameters and what scientist people say, is actually FAR below CD-Quality. It just is.
So, please don't act so hysterically about every my opinion that is a bit ignorant or selfish. I'm simply honest.
Well I've got to say, that's a pretty shitheaded attitute you've got there. Basically thinking like this makes the world full of peopel who think that one person can't do naught or won't have an effect. And with 40% of people thinking like that you know what happens. I really don't accept it, but if it's your choise then so be it, I'd never do like that myself.
I steal in churces on Sundays; I mean, someone who could afford to build Vatican city won't mind, will they?
You can be honest and still be selfish and ignorant, they're not mutually exclusive.
True.
But one thing is illegal downloading and another is attitude behind it.
I'm not really downloading anything, as I said -- youtube and web radios cover all my musical needs. So I'm not doing anything wrong.
Do I need to change my way of thinking? Maybe.
But who cares?
Do I care?
What created modern pop music? Two things: Tape recorders and sampling. The true symbols of illegal music.
We could get really philosophical here and start discussing how reasonable is to tax airwaves and pieces of magnetic iron. Or notes. It would sound really stupid though.
And downloading?
1) I spend hours listening radio/watching MTV and that track to play. Free
2) I download track, listen, delete. Free
So, option 1 is legal and option 2 is illegal. Does it make sense? I really don't see this.
How does musician benefit from me sitting and waiting like a moron?
ESPECIALLY since I don't have money to buy album anyway. Either I listen illegaly or not, I still cannot pay for it. It doesn't change anything!
I prefer to think of albums as collectibles: It's not music you pay for, but a collection of creations of a person/group. Music, and how much you like it determines the quality of album and how much you want it. But a plastic disc is sold, not music itself. It's your contribution, support and bow towards group/person you admire and whom creations you like.
This way, it all makes sense.
And what if all people start stealing songs? Am I to blame?
Music was created as cultural output, not a way to earn living. Capitalism is what turned it into business. If musician likes what he does, buck here or there shouldn't matter.
If he's doing it for pure money, well, by my standards, no respect.
And I stay here, be as politically correct / nazi about free thinking as you wish. As always.
I have bought mp3's on several occasions, but only directly from artists themselves. The fact that no one else is taking their hard earned money from them is a big factor for me. But usually I buy vinyl records and CD's, though I mostly download it illegally first to see if it's worth the money. Haven't done much downloading lately though and I've only bought like 2 or 3 CD's this year (and without hearing their contents beforehand).
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/05/2008 15:54:44
What created modern pop music? Two things: Tape recorders and sampling. The true symbols of illegal music.
come again? Pop music preexists tape records and sampling! rock 'n roll is a form of pop music! Back then the only thing were bombines (sp) and nothing else!
QuoteAnd downloading?
1) I spend hours listening radio/watching MTV and that track to play. Free
2) I download track, listen, delete. Free
So, option 1 is legal and option 2 is illegal. Does it make sense? I really don't see this.
How does musician benefit from me sitting and waiting like a moron?
Option 1 is legal because this way:
1. The tv channels get paid, via advertising.
2. You get what you want
3. The companies and artists get royalties
Option 2 bypasses everything, except yourself. Selfish!
QuoteESPECIALLY since I don't have money to buy album anyway. Either I listen illegaly or not, I still cannot pay for it. It doesn't change anything!
Do't listen then. Why should you taste the fruits of someone's effort, talent, capital, etc for free? I don't get it really! There is no loss of revenue, true, but still if you don't think it's worthy of your $, then don't listen quite simple. If you want to listen, it simply means that it counts as something to you, in which case you should "reward" the artist and everything else included in the effort to bring the song to you.
Quit smoking and you get 5 albums per month! Or 100 mp3s or something! Am I wrong?
QuoteI prefer to think of albums as collectibles: It's not music you pay for, but a collection of creations of a person/group. Music, and how much you like it determines the quality of album and how much you want it. But a plastic disc is sold, not music itself. It's your contribution, support and bow towards group/person you admire and whom creations you like.
This way, it all makes sense.
If you want to listen to something, it means that you like, admire and bow towards the group/person, so... pay up!
QuoteAnd what if all people start stealing songs? Am I to blame?
Nobody is stealing anything. This is rubbish! Pirates are not thieves, it's ridiculous to think this way (I'm backing you up here. ;))
QuoteMusic was created as cultural output, not a way to earn living. Capitalism is what turned it into business. If musician likes what he does, buck here or there shouldn't matter.
Hem... in order to become successful in anything it takes dedication, studying probably, experience, time, effort, sweat, money, etc. It's not capitalism. Even dead for long composers had a revenue through their music. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, and all other known classical composers (and unknown). I mean it's quite simple. I spend all my life making music, right (not me personally). I also need to feed my family, because I spend all my life doing music and not something else, like work in a bank. A buck here or there does not matter then?
QuoteIf he's doing it for pure money, well, by my standards, no respect.
And I stay here, be as politically correct / nazi about free thinking as you wish. As always.
Do you know for sure who is doing it only for the money and who is not? Do you know Britney, Madonna, Robbin Williams, Radiohead, NIN, and whatever else you want to put it and you know they're after money? Are you sure? Dead sure? So sure that you can lose respect over someone?
Weird... It's so easy as it seems for anyone to know the tax declarations of famous people! Miraculously easy. It's also quite easy as it seems to decide whether people need money or not. It's easy to decide
for them! And it's also easy to not respect anyone who is working... And becoming famous because they are working...
So much hysteria. Why?
I'm not stealing your music, Nikolas.
Infact, if you release something I like, I would gladly pay for it.
About sampling: Whole genres have been found on it. Again, I'm talking about music I listen. The kind of music that does not involve poor teenagers playing in parents garage.
They might need help to rise. Not a DJ who cuts together 3 most played songs and releases as someone - something (that DJ mix).
I'm downloading (or rather, downloaded before age of web radios and youtube) mp3's because it's cheaper and easier to do. Comfortable. If it irritates you that someone listens something you paid for - for free -- well, I won't stop you from downloading too. Or if you don't want to, well, don't complain. It's not like only downloaders are separate group of people who have ability to pirate music, actually anyone can do it. You made your choice, I made mine. We both made them because we thought it was best choice.
Why argue who is better? If I burn in hell for this, well, frankly I don't give a fuck -- I've lived a good life where I could listen to anything I want and not worry that I can't afford it.
It just is so.
Like it or not.
NO, I don't claim divine right to get everything free while others pay, if that's the spark that lit all the TNT here. But I won't pay for something if I don't find this well justified AND can get for free.
But I admit my stupidity: I should have sticked to "no" like Obi, and not forget about flame-consumer-parenting AGSers like to do always in threads like this...
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/05/2008 18:01:47
But I admit my stupidity: I should have sticked to "no" like Obi, and not forget about flame-consumer-parenting AGSers like to do always in threads like this...
Oh never mind...
I shouldn't have posted as well. If you are to feel this way. :P
But really this is a public forum, you say something trying to justify and excuse and provide explanation, so I'm also offering my opinion. What hysteria? I'm not selling anything, at the moment, am I? (might be in the future... ;D) I already said nobody is stealing anything and you can get and download all the mp3s I have in my website for free. What hysteria (again)?Don't get annoyed because your arguments are filled with water... Sorry.
But really, never mind... I certainly didn't want to parent you or flame you (did I flame you? When?) or anything.
Carry on...
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/05/2008 15:54:44
ESPECIALLY since I don't have money to buy album anyway. Either I listen illegaly or not, I still cannot pay for it. It doesn't change anything!
I can't afford to pay for that new PC game, so I guess I'll just torrent it instead. Hey, either I get it illegally or I don't get it at all.
I can't afford to pay for that cool leather jacket, so I guess I'll just wait for someone else to buy it, and steal it from them. Hey, either I get it illegally or I don't get it at all.
I can't afford to pay for that Ferrari 250 TR 61 Spyder Fantuzzi, so I guess I'll just carjack the next person I see driving one. Hey, either I get it illegally or I don't get it at all!
I can't afford to pay for high-class prostitutes, so I guess raping someone will have to do. Hey, either I get it illegally or I don't get it at all!
Extreme extrapolations, sure, but it doesn't change the core belief that we are somehow still entitled to something if we can't pay for it.
That attitude bugs the hell out of me.
"I didn't steal anything, I just downloaded some ones and zero!" Because it's not a physical object, it's not theft. Rubbish.
By that logic, I could steal a tune that Nikolas wrote, rerecord it, and pass it off as my own composition. I didn't steal anything physical, just a collection of aural resonations that happen to fall in a particular pattern. You can't hold the aural resonance of a progression of notes in your hand, so how is it stealing?!
I'm not judging people who illegally download music; it's their call either way. But the only reason someone illegally downloads music is because it's free and easy.
That makes you a thief. A digital thief, but a thief all the same.
And that's fine. No skin off my cheeks.
EDIT: From one extreme to the other. (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/09/house-passes-bill-th.html)
Wrong. Raping, Grand theft auto, etc is material displacement or manipulation.
You TAKE something. Physical.
Or there was a car. Now it's gone!
Seeing and listening is NOT. There won't be less song or movie if someone listens or watches it. There's no subtraction.
But the principal is the same.
"I want something. I cannot pay for it. Therefore, I will take it."
Surely, you can't disagree with that? :)
No and I won't try to.
And I even agree that's a theft.
Theft of potential money.
But if there's no potential money in the first place, well...
I won't feel guilty.
That's the whole point!
I'll happily download rarities or b-sides that are hard to find - but I do like to pay for CDs.
I'll also download songs to make my mind up about a band/album.
I'm going to leave out my personal feelings on the legality/theft issue of this subject. Been there, done that 'round these parts and don't care to debate or rehash the same old subject.
I just want to reiterate what I've said countless times before in this debate:
I can appreciate that there are those that think it's a terrible sin and don't approve. However ... you're outnumbered by about 1,000,000 to 1 in this matter. It's a battle that, no matter how justified you feel and/or how clearly you see the right/wrong, you will never win. It's easy, it's safe, and it's FREE to download music. Legality aside, people are going to do it. It really is just that simple.
Now maybe it's just me but, were on your side of the fence ... I don't know ... it's just not a battle/crusade I'd choose to take part in and/or lose sleep over. I will, however, grant that I'm not a musician and so I have an "outsider's" perspective on the matter. So I can only speculate based on how I feel on the subject.
Don't get me wrong; I'm an advocate of "fighting the good fight" ... this just doesn't seem like a "good fight" to me.
Weird thought:
If someone would be desperate enough to break laws just to experience my music, i'd be actually quite flattered.
But it would be same if people were willing to pay for it.
Hm.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 09/05/2008 20:07:25
I can appreciate that there are those that think it's a terrible sin and don't approve.
I really couldn't care less about the morality of downloading music, I just can't stand the reasons people give for doing so.
You steal music because, as you've said yourself, it's free and easy. You'd rather not pay for it, so you get it for free.
The millions of people who do likewise, do it for that very reason.
The really is no discussion beyond that. No fight against DRM, no sticking it to the Man, etc. Nothing.
Millions of thieves, going about their business, more or less harming nobody. Grand. The "fight" against music piracy is a joke anyway, and arguably costs the record industry more than any losses they may incur through illegal downloads. Metallica cry about the financial integrity of bands such as themselves, between bouts of supermodel blowjobs and solid-gold chariot races around Lar's castle. Fuck them. A couple of bucks here and there isn't going to put them on the poverty line.
So where does that leave us? Greedy record companies who will never be happy, musicians who already have too much money anyway, and the millions of thieves in between, hurting nobody.
I'm not going to bother fighting the thieves, and the fact that I don't count myself among their number gives me scant moral satisfaction.
But all of the above changes squat, because, in the end, it all comes down to stealing something because you don't want to pay for it. Thievery.
Hooray!
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 09/05/2008 22:23:07You steal music because, as you've said yourself, it's free and easy. You'd rather not pay for it, so you get it for free.
My reasons are far more in-depth than that over simplification. However, as has been proven time and again in threads just like this, there's no way I can express it. People will just say I'm wrong and that I do it for the reasons
they think. Because, clearly, people I've never met would know my own feelings and beliefs better than I.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 09/05/2008 22:23:07The really is no discussion beyond that. No fight against DRM, no sticking it to the Man, etc. Nothing.
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that person A has a problem with the greedy record companies. What better way could they "stick it to the man" than by downloading the music without financial compensation to them? Sure you could boycott, protest, create petitions, etc. But all of that isn't going to accomplish anything really. The greedy people will sit on high in their castles promptly ignoring it. But you perform an action that makes them less money ... well ... they suddenly start noticing.
Just a thought.
Just a thought (more aiming to your second paragraph, Darth :))
What I find strange is that many decide to bypass the companies, because they are "greedy" (not that they're not), they are not offering anything and the companies are hurting the artists themselves.
As I've said it before, you can get literally millions of tracks in myspace, soundclick, acidplanet and the rest. Millions! Enough to last you a life time. Yet pirates crave for the signed artists.
Now we can discuss that the signed artists are in fact better (this is why they're signed), but we all know that this is half true, don't we? The whole truth is that signed artists sound better because of the companies! They are produced better, they are shown better, they have better videos, better packaging, better marketing, better promotion, better advertising, better looks, better everything. (No, I don't agree 100%, and I won't define "better"). So in all honesty, the reason people go for the signed artists, the commercial albums, the illegal part of downloading, is simply because the "greedy", "awful", "bad to the artist" company has made them better! Oh the irony! ;D
I'm not saying that they are not greedy! I'm not saying things couldn't be simpler, cheaper, better! I'm not claiming that DRM does not bother me hugely! But I am saying that there is a role for the companies to be had! That the companies are not worthless! That we do, in fact need the companies!
And I'll tell you what else. If, indeed, the music industry is dying, as some want it, and others wish it, all that there will be left is the myspace democracy, which, frankly sucks big time!
I like to have a cd in my hands or in my cd-rack. But recently I bought an album online. It was "Kitchen Radio" by The Polyjesters; shipping from Canada to Germany would have been too expensive, so I bought the MP3s.
sidenote: Great album!
Almost double post:
I hugely prefer CDs over downloads, for the added quality, the physical object in my hands, the artwork and info you get from the pamphlet inside.
If it is something I will listen to continuously I will make it into a tape, for the car, or mp3 forthe computer.
It is also true that my buys have declined hugely over the past 5 years, that I started getting online! No need anymore, it's been covered by youtube. The few things I do want, I buy on CDs, always. Never bought online an mp3.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 10/05/2008 00:54:39
Let's just say, for argument's sake, that person A has a problem with the greedy record companies. What better way could they "stick it to the man" than by downloading the music without financial compensation to them? Sure you could boycott, protest, create petitions, etc. But all of that isn't going to accomplish anything really. The greedy people will sit on high in their castles promptly ignoring it. But you perform an action that makes them less money ... well ... they suddenly start noticing.
Just a thought.
The contradiction in that statement is that person A still
gets the music. The music companies get no money when nobody buys the music. The act of taking the music anyway, or having your cake and eating it too, is what undermines your argument.
Don't buy the music. The record companies will feel the pinch. But as long as you acquire the music through illegal channels, you give the record companies valid, if draconian, reasons for behaving the way they do.
Sure, the record companies are going to behave in whatever manner returns them the highest profit. But without the scapegoat of "Piracy" to justify DRM/price hikes/etc, it might make it more difficult for them to get away with it.
Nikolas:
In the past, people made music without the record companies. They seemed to do just fine :) I think the record companies have MADE themselves seem like they are indispensable. They aren't really. What they do does not always improve the quality of the product (usually music, but ahem... not always). They just provide money so that the musicians can do MORE. But MORE isn't BETTER.
You could argue that the companies make themselves the agent through which the musicians make themselves known, like book publishers. But more and more people are publishing online or self-publishing. So why can't the music industry do the same? Why is there this idea that "I MUST be signed in order to become a successful musician"? Is it self-perpetuating?
The record companies are the ones who are crying foul when people download music. As InCreator rightly pointed out, the trend is that the artists themselves are more than happy to give away their music. Look at NIN, Radiohead, Prince. All big name musicians, all giving away music for free, all gaining new fans by doing so and losing NONE. Yes, you may say they are big name now because of the record companies, and that's why they are able to give away their music. It's true there needs to be a critical mass backing you, or else you'll be giving away music free forever. That's where the problem is. Do we need record companies to gain this critical mass?
Going off on a tangent: musicians, by their very definition, are people who perform music for a living. These have existed since time immemorial in many different cultures; although they may not have been paid in money, they may have been paid with food and lodging. But they're not a product of capitalism, and to say that only those who produce music and art out of a pure love for it are REAL artists is simply not fair. People now can afford to create music and art for the love of it, and not expect financial compensation, because they are better off now and can afford to give away their leisure time... now that's a product of capitalism.
It's funny. I'm a very moral person. At least, I've got a very loud and obnoxious conscience. I was stung by a wasp last night, so I squished the bastard, and could barely sleep over it.
I've never stolen anything, never engaged anyone in a physical fight, never lied about anything important. I'd make a point to return anything to its rightful owner, from a sheet of stickers their kid has dropped, to a sack of gold.
Yet I've downloaded a warehouse's worth of music without an inkling of guilt.
Is my moral compass just on the fritz here, or could it be that downloading music is about as immoral as buying non-FT coffee, or leaving the bathroom light on when you're not using it...
I have never bought music online, but as it seems we never listen to our CDs anymore, will probably do so in the future. Until then Last.fm and various radio channels serve me just fine.
Quote from: Emerald on Sat 10/05/2008 02:46:35
Is my moral compass just on the fritz here, or could it be that downloading music is about as immoral as buying non-FT coffee, or leaving the bathroom light on when you're not using it...
Keep in mind that "morality" and "legality" are two different concepts that do not always agree. Personally I find the act of downloading the latest hit album/movie/game from a large, well off studio/publisher less immoral than let's say killing that wasp that stung you last night. It is clearly wrong if you -- by choice -- resort to piracy (an extremely bad choice of words for the act, mind you)
instead of paying for the product, but if you couldn't or wouldn't buy in any case we're talking about a different ball of wax.
PS: I share your "problem" with the loud conscience, but I think it is hardly obnoxious. If anything, it's a necessary step in the evolution of a social animal like us. There'd be a lot less killing and exploiting going on in the world if all of us had such an efficient moral compass.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 10/05/2008 02:11:45The contradiction in that statement is that person A still gets the music. The music companies get no money when nobody buys the music. The act of taking the music anyway, or having your cake and eating it too, is what undermines your argument.
There's no contradiction. If person A just didn't buy the music, sure the record companies get no money. BUT if they get the music for free (not paying the label), then they
really stick it to the man. Which was the entire, non-contradictory, point.
But again ... this is another example of the pointlessness of this debate. In the end, it's all a matter of perspective. You see it your way, I see it mine.
auriond: How past are you talking about? I'm not sure if classical artists had managers, but in all honesty both Beethoven and Mozart had their fathers to guide them and book them comissions, etc. Bach had the church, Vivaldi, Haydn, Handel a king each, etc. ;D I don't know for further back, but I doubt it's any interesting to go further back...
No, more isn't better, no doubt there, and no dissagreement, you know it! :) But at the same time, skill alone usually is not enough. It's great to play the best piano in the world, but unless you do get your hands on a great grand piano, a great mic, great composisions and a great engineer your skill and talent will not pass to the audience.
Yes, the companies are the ones majourly bothered, but I have a suspicion that it's only because the companies have the ugly face there. If you remember, a few years back, Mettalica went against their fans, and see where that ended (or ask Darth! ;D). The frontiers to this whole scheme are the bands, NIN, Radiohead, NIN, etc. Imagine having radiohead nag about downloads. They would be history instantly!
Also do put into consideration that NIN put their (his rather) album for free, but not all of it. Only 10 tracks of the whole album (which is around 20 I think?). Radioheads album is right now on sale, from a normal label on stores, and prince stoped releasing his album for free. Great impression moves, but not sure if this will keep up. It is an experiment which could show the way and it's mighty interesting, but I am having doubts that more than 100 bands world wide can do this. The rest are too dependant.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 10/05/2008 16:00:05
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 10/05/2008 02:11:45The contradiction in that statement is that person A still gets the music. The music companies get no money when nobody buys the music. The act of taking the music anyway, or having your cake and eating it too, is what undermines your argument.
There's no contradiction. If person A just didn't buy the music, sure the record companies get no money. BUT if they get the music for free (not paying the label), then they really stick it to the man. Which was the entire, non-contradictory, point.
But again ... this is another example of the pointlessness of this debate. In the end, it's all a matter of perspective. You see it your way, I see it mine.
Well, yes. But you lean towards the choice that benefits
you the most. The music company makes no profit either way, and that amount of profit doesn't change whether you downloaded the music for free or just chose not to buy the CD. You're not really sticking it to the man any more than someone who just boycotts the product, and, like I said earlier, you're just feeding the scapegoat the industry uses to justify it's behavior. You may enjoy a sort of "Take that, EMI!" feeling when you download the album, but, and this is the point of my argument, it's an entirely self-serving decision.
So it's a conscious, and entirely separate, action on your part to steal the music, as opposed to just not buying it. Simply not buying the music would have just as much an effect on profits.
Which is why objecting to the music industry, and stealing their product, don't go hand in hand.
EDIT: I've used the terms "you" and "you're", etc, during these last few posts, and I'd just like to point out that I'm not aiming these observations at Darth himself, or at any individual, in particular.:)
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 10/05/2008 16:19:04
Also do put into consideration that NIN put their (his rather) album for free, but not all of it. Only 10 tracks of the whole album (which is around 20 I think?). Radioheads album is right now on sale, from a normal label on stores, and prince stoped releasing his album for free.
Just for the record, NIN released Volume I of their "Ghosts I - IV" album for free online, which consisted 9 of the 36 tracks. From there, people could choose to pay $5 for a download of all 4 volumes, $10 for CDs of them all, and various other packages up to a limited edition $300 vinyl set with garageband tracks included. Not a shabby deal I think!
But perhaps more importantly, they* released another album - "The Slip" - for free last Monday. Completely free, with no option to buy. This is a proper album also, not just some instrumental thing like "Ghosts." There will be a "conventional" release in stores in the future (sometime in Summer I believe) but the way it has been initially released is very relevant to what is going on in the music industry currently.
It's nice to see other high profile bands continuing what Radiohead have essentially started here.
Another interesting release from recent times was The Raconteurs second album - they announced its release literally a week before it was in shops, bypassing any pre-release promotional stuff that bands usually have to do before an album. They got their music from the studio to the shops in the shortest possible time it could take to maufacture. From what I can tell, the band are very keen on traditional media formats for their work (they recommended listening to it on vinyl) but were not afraid to release it in a new and interesting way, letting their music do the talking rather than their all important "first week sales" or whatever.
The point I'm making here is that the power of the music is being put back into the hands of the artists directly more now than ever. Bands can choose to interact with their fans on any level they wish, and many have used the internet as a way of getting themselves heard in new and exciting ways.
So my question to the hypothetical masses is: what you got against record companies, dawg?
With the exception of Radiohead, who were between labels when they released In Rainbows online, most artists have had to use record companies to do these things. The record companies fund them in the studio, promote their material, and get the music out in the shops.
Generally I hear the word "greedy" used in conjunction with "record company." And perhaps some of the higher-ups in these companies are making more than they should. But there are lots of other people in that company, working on promoting and selling their artists - do they not deserve a wage for their efforts?
If you, for example, designed an album cover for a band, would you not be a bit pissed if no one bought the album and you didn't get paid?
Personally, I attempt to buy music (most often physical copies) wherever I can. I have been known to download music - most often to check a band out and get a feel for them as a "try before you buy" approach - but I make no attempt to justify it. It's stealing. Often stealing from people who deserve the money (most notably the band.)
* - I don't know why I always refer to Nine Inch Nails as "they," it's clearly just one man.
I agree nearly 100% with veryweirdguy except I don't download the music to get a feel for the band, I go to free.napster.com
(Well, okay, also, I don't much like Nine Inch Nails but to each his own ;) )
The only songs I've downloaded online without paying for are tracks on the No Kill I's website which they put there themselves because they haven't released an album yet.
AGSers are a lawful citizens, yay! Last time I've bought an album was an year ago, because I couldn't find it on the Mule.
Heh...when I saw the title of this post my brain went "Ahhahahhahhaahaahaaaa! Hooo...hoo, boy, no."
I download everything I can get my hands on for free, and my reasoning is as follows - with the rise of Ebay and Craigslist, I *never* buy anything at regular retail stores anymore to begin with. At best, I used to pay $2 - $3 for a CD from some guy on Ebay, burn it, and sell it right on to someone else. Same thing for video games. I would go to Barnes and Noble and read my favorite new graphic novels for free, or at the library. I can get almost every new movie I want at my library, and re-check it out as many times as I want. My favorite TV shows I can see for free on TV or the channels' websites, so why not keep copies of them on my computer? The fact is, the retailers wouldn't get any of my money anyways even if I did purchase something, because I always get stuff free or at 90% discounts, thirdhand. I actively encourage all my friends to pirate as often as they can.
Not to forget either that while I appreciate good music, movies and so on, I disagree heartily that people that make them should be paid millions of dollars just for performing. I don't like the godhood hollywood syndrome surrounding famous people, and would actively undermine them any way I can. It's sickening to listen to rock stars in mansions complaining that they're losing so much money to pirating, considering that what they do has no tangible value to anyone beyond a few minutes of entertainment at a time. Musicians and actors shouldn't make any more than regular wage-slave workers.
Plus I used to be a professional burglar and various other kinds of thief in my slightly younger days, so I feel pretty fine about stealing stuff anyways. :) Gods bless ye, Pirate Bay, sez I!
SV, your reasoning makes more sense than other people's but it seems to imply that production companies are the only people losing money when you steal. It's true that when I pick some ten year old game at Savers for two dollars the money isn't going to Interplay anymore, but it is going somewhere.
And also, Musicians and actors of course make more than wage slaves because people spend money on their products and that money obviously has to go somewhere. The only way to fix it would be from up there amongst the musicians and actors, like making an extensive charity that gives money to teachers and stuff, the really important members of society.
Quote from: Strange Visitor on Sun 11/05/2008 04:20:23
Plus I used to be a professional burglar and various other kinds of thief in my slightly younger days, so I feel pretty fine about stealing stuff anyways. :) Gods bless ye, Pirate Bay, sez I!
How can you be a 'professional' burglar? It's not like they have theft agencies who'll provide you with gigs, or a label which will sign you on as a pro... What exactly sets you apart from regular burglars?
Anyway, I don't delude myself with any sort of notions of grandeur like 'sticking it to the man' or 'giving those cocky hollywood bastards their comeuppance'.
I download music because I like music, and as far as I'm concerned it's totally inconsequential -- these rockstars couldn't care less about the few hundred euros they've missed out on because of me downloading their music (not to mention that the audio quality is usually worse, the format can be awkward and you often end up with an incomplete album -- I often end up buying it in the end).
Any arguments against it is purely on principle. It's like jay-walking -- illegal, but everybody does it (at least in Dublin they do).
Style and panache! 8)
Quote from: Strange Visitor on Sun 11/05/2008 22:34:52
Style and panache! 8)
Sounds exciting. I heard that noble burglars pick houses with no kids, and never carry lethal weapons.
Pish...amateurs! I'm so noble I didn't even do houses. And I have so much panache that anything I carry becomes a weapon. ;D
(Well, okay, my very first failure was a house, and it learned me my lesson but good, even though I didn't (but nearly) got caught.) It was a 6-year stint of nothing but commercial buildings for me! Well, discounting the shoplifting, false ID manufacturing, credit and check fraud, embezzlement, identity theft, and other things that mostly didn't involve B&E. I gave it up willingly when my last job got screwed up due to an all-night party being thrown at my target...seriously, who parties at a hockey rink on Christmas Eve? My nerves were too frazzled, and I've been on the wobblingly narrow ever since. :)
So yeah, no houses. 8)
Thanks for the confession; I don't think anyone here would be happy to have you show up at Mittens, though. :=
Maybe Mittens goers will each have to bring a designated item that he can burgle and nothing else. Like a big pile of staplers.
Awww, give me *some* credit...I was a gentleman thief. I wouldn't steal from friends, and certainly not other Adventure Gamers. :)
(ProgZmax: Heh, that wasn't really a confession. Confession implies penitence, and all my memories of it are warm and fuzzy. I love telling people stories about my own adventurous days, and it's not like anyone can prove any of it in court. :) )