Do you pay to download music?

[InCreator]

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!

[Hammerite]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

[InCreator]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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!

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

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.

The 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.

[Nikolas]

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!

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!

[nihilyst]

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!

[Nikolas]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[auriond]

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.

[Emerald]

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...

[tube]

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.

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

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.

[Nikolas]

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. 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! ). 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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

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.

[veryweirdguy]

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.

[Captain Lexington]

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.

[bicilotti]

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.

[Play_Pretend]

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!