Laughing City

Do you download free music?
Yes
90%
 90%  [ 40 ]
No
9%
 9%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 44

Author Message
Triel
Sea Post King


In my English 101 class, we're doing a paper on the ethics of intellectual property. It's a pretty broad topic, but I'm curious specifically about music file sharing - downloading music off the internet without paying for it, burning CDs, things of that nature. Is it wrong? Is it stealing, even though there isn't a direct victim? What about good ol' "Everybody else is doing it, I might as well..?"

I think that whether you consider it to be stealing (which most people agree is wrong) or not depends on your justifications for doing it, or not doing it. Many people admit that walking out of the store with a CD in your bag that you didn't pay for is stealing, and is morally wrong, but think that downloading that CD is not. Perhaps because nothing tangible was taken? What do you think? If you do download music, how do you justify yourself? Is it right or wrong? If you don't, why not?
Joined: 28 May 2005 | Posts: 27 | Location: Washington state!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Marie B
Sea Post King


If I want a song or two, I'm not going to pay for the entire CD unless I really, really like the artist or if they're a small, unknown band. I bought every single Snow Patrol and Eisley CD I could find, and I did the same for Ash. Big bands, though . . no thanks.

If I want a Madonna single -- which is never gonna happen -- I'm sure not going to put more money in her pocket for one lousy song.

I don't justify it, really. That's just how it is, and I don't even think about whether it's right or wrong anymore - I think about whether I can afford to buy a couple CDs every week or not.

_________________
so i says to mavis, i says . .
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 | Posts: 239 | Location: Addison, Texas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


Record labels blame their plummeting sales on downloading, but in fact people who download music buy more legal music than people who don't download. The sales issues are due to the fact that labels are releasing crap music and not properly publicizing the handful of decent artists they're supposed to promote.

If I can't find a particularly CD used or new in my town, I'll download it first, decide whether I like it, and if I do I'll buy the CD over eBay or Amazon or some such. Plenty of musicians (myself included) support filesharing within reason since it's such a good way of getting your name out there. Free publicity is pretty important for indie bands.

Note how Eisley have released an entire EP for free to anyone who wants it. Do a P2P search for Eisley and the majority of the results will be those songs. Also, check out my topic in this forum on Jane Siberry, who allows people to download tracks from her online store for free.

Good luck on your paper! It's a fascinating topic and there's no shortage of information and opinions out there. If you want to read someone who knows a lot more about this than I do, check out Cory Doctorow. He's a BoingBoing contributor who posts a lot about filesharing, DRM restrictions, and the stupidity of the RIAA for treating their customers like criminals.

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Triel
Sea Post King


Thanks guys. I definitely agree with what you've said. I'm having trouble finding a specific focus for this paper, but it's definitely an interesting topic and I've got a lot info. I can't decide if I want to write for or against it though. Most of the articles I've found are against it, but then again, most of them aren't by people who are huge music fans, but rather people from record labels and whatnot.
Joined: 28 May 2005 | Posts: 27 | Location: Washington state!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
MoreOfTheSame
Vintage Newbie


I will freely admit that I download music.

The majority of what I download is music that is either out of print, not available in the US, or not available in the majority of record shops due to a lack of distribution power; in other words, I don't have the opprotunity to properly purchase it.

Poverty also plays a part in it as well, which is why I don't buy from Amazon (as their imports are outrageously priced, and I try to avoid buying online when I can). I'm also anti-iTunes, so that nixes that avenue (I'm sorry, but I can't justify paying their prices for a file type incompatible with almost everything except an iPod or a patched version of winamp when I can pay half that for a song with better sound quality on an actual CD with album art).

Do I still buy CDs? Of course. But if I can't find anywhere that sells what I'm looking for, than what else am I supposed to do?

And to draw a comparison, is downloading music really all that different from printing off a picture of a famous painting? When you print off that aforementioned painting, you are not printing the original, but rather a digital scan of a photograph of that painting. Likewise, with mp3s/m4as/atracs, you are getting a compressed audio file where the music has a limited frequency range that results in poor sound quality, as opposed to the audio on a CD where sound is uncompressed, and as a result is better. 99% of the time the audio file (particular from a p2p file-sharing service like Limewire or Soulseek) is sourced from the same CD that is available to purchase at your local Best Buy, not the master tapes for the recording.

In other words, you are downloading/printing a copy of a copy of a piece of art (unless you use iTunes, in which you're PURCHASING a second/third generation copy).
Joined: 02 Sep 2003 | Posts: 2455 | Location: Grapevine, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
MoreOfTheSame
Vintage Newbie


Saellys wrote:
Record labels blame their plummeting sales on downloading, but in fact people who download music buy more legal music than people who don't download. The sales issues are due to the fact that labels are releasing crap music and not properly publicizing the handful of decent artists they're supposed to promote.


Exactly! They are having absolutely no regard for the audience (or to use their language, the consumer demographic), and are really only concerned with the business and finance aspect of the industry. These days it's to the point where the fact that they're selling music is just a mere coincidence.

Their business model is based on selling CDs. Before high-speed connections and CD-R drives were readily available to the masses, your only avenues for finding new music were music television and radio, and largely CDs were only available in music and electronic stores. Basically, any label that wasn't a multi-million dollar company had little chance of being able to sell their wares in Circut City or get a song by their new artist on the radio. In other words, those with the most money had the market eating out of their hands. Now remember when CDs used to be $19.99?

Likewise, any band that dreamt of fame and fortune had to sign to the large labels for sky-high advances (that they would later have to pay back) and poor to nonexistant royalty rates, record in the most expensive studios with producers that charged millions of dollars and 5%+ of album sales, and then spend even more money to shoot a music video for MTV and get their song on the radio. Your record label became your credit union basically; they made a fortune off of any profits you earned in order to pay back the aforementioned expenses, and you were making less money than the clerk at 7-11. TLC is proof of this. They were the most successful R&B act of the mid-1990's, and in 1997 members were filing for bankruptcy because they were only making $0.10 an album.

Flash forward to around 1999 to 2000. Cable modems become available for the mass public as an alternative to the 56k and 28.8k modems that had been the best thing available beforehand, allowing you to download information faster to your home computer than ever before. Sound capabilities are improving on computers, enabling recording audio directly onto your computer. Online retailers such as Amazon are coming into there own, where you can buy anything from cars to clothing to the new Sandra Bullock movie at lower prices directly from home. CD-R drives and blank CD-Rs begin to decline in price as well, giving you a more viable alternative than clunky Zip disks for backing up your computer. Oh, by the way, you also have the option of burning audio CDs with audio files.

Would you believe that this kept record label executives up at night for a few years?

Look at things now. CD production costs are the lowest they've ever been thanks to increases in technology. Advances in home recording can enable anyone with any musical idea to record music without even needing instruments (ie MIDI). Anyone who wishes to sell a band's music can sell online without ever having to talk to a wholesale distributor and promote them for free on websites like Myspace and Purevolume.

In other words, major labels, radio, and MTV aren't really needed anymore. As a result,

-MTV has turned into a lifestyle network for teenagers.

-FM radio has tried to recoup losses with advertising, and as result begat the quickly growing niche market of satellite radio, where for a small fee you can listen to radio with more choices and no commercials.

-Major labels are panicking to find songs that will make them a quick buck to survive the next quarter (as it takes too much time to develop talented artists like Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, and Paul McCartney, who have been incredibly successful musicians for over thirty years). Meanwhile, in an attempt to maintain some hold on the marketplace, campaigns against file-sharing are launched, with labels doing everything from suing file-sharing companies and consumers, selling streaming music services online for outrageous prices, selling music online in "protected formats', copy-protecting CDs with technology than can be bypassed with a sharpie, and burning spyware onto CDs that can crash computer systems. Would you believe this made a few people upset?

Bottom line: Major labels have lost their marketplace dominance due to technological advances and even a change in cultural attitudes, and they have no idea what to do.
Joined: 02 Sep 2003 | Posts: 2455 | Location: Grapevine, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Sharpelectricstar
Sea Post King


I download rare songs, live vids, ect. Sometimes i'll download an album, but if i like a band enough to listen to them a lot then i will buy there album. I normally try before i buy to. Razz
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 | Posts: 490 | 
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Saellys
Vintage Newbie


MoreOfTheSame wrote:
Exactly! They are having absolutely no regard for the audience (or to use their language, the consumer demographic), and are really only concerned with the business and finance aspect of the industry. These days it's to the point where the fact that they're selling music is just a mere coincidence.

Their business model is based on selling CDs. Before high-speed connections and CD-R drives were readily available to the masses, your only avenues for finding new music were music television and radio, and largely CDs were only available in music and electronic stores. Basically, any label that wasn't a multi-million dollar company had little chance of being able to sell their wares in Circut City or get a song by their new artist on the radio. In other words, those with the most money had the market eating out of their hands. Now remember when CDs used to be $19.99?

Likewise, any band that dreamt of fame and fortune had to sign to the large labels for sky-high advances (that they would later have to pay back) and poor to nonexistant royalty rates, record in the most expensive studios with producers that charged millions of dollars and 5%+ of album sales, and then spend even more money to shoot a music video for MTV and get their song on the radio. Your record label became your credit union basically; they made a fortune off of any profits you earned in order to pay back the aforementioned expenses, and you were making less money than the clerk at 7-11. TLC is proof of this. They were the most successful R&B act of the mid-1990's, and in 1997 members were filing for bankruptcy because they were only making $0.10 an album.

Flash forward to around 1999 to 2000. Cable modems become available for the mass public as an alternative to the 56k and 28.8k modems that had been the best thing available beforehand, allowing you to download information faster to your home computer than ever before. Sound capabilities are improving on computers, enabling recording audio directly onto your computer. Online retailers such as Amazon are coming into there own, where you can buy anything from cars to clothing to the new Sandra Bullock movie at lower prices directly from home. CD-R drives and blank CD-Rs begin to decline in price as well, giving you a more viable alternative than clunky Zip disks for backing up your computer. Oh, by the way, you also have the option of burning audio CDs with audio files.

Would you believe that this kept record label executives up at night for a few years?

Look at things now. CD production costs are the lowest they've ever been thanks to increases in technology. Advances in home recording can enable anyone with any musical idea to record music without even needing instruments (ie MIDI). Anyone who wishes to sell a band's music can sell online without ever having to talk to a wholesale distributor and promote them for free on websites like Myspace and Purevolume.

In other words, major labels, radio, and MTV aren't really needed anymore. As a result,

-MTV has turned into a lifestyle network for teenagers.

-FM radio has tried to recoup losses with advertising, and as result begat the quickly growing niche market of satellite radio, where for a small fee you can listen to radio with more choices and no commercials.

-Major labels are panicking to find songs that will make them a quick buck to survive the next quarter (as it takes too much time to develop talented artists like Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, and Paul McCartney, who have been incredibly successful musicians for over thirty years). Meanwhile, in an attempt to maintain some hold on the marketplace, campaigns against file-sharing are launched, with labels doing everything from suing file-sharing companies and consumers, selling streaming music services online for outrageous prices, selling music online in "protected formats', copy-protecting CDs with technology than can be bypassed with a sharpie, and burning spyware onto CDs that can crash computer systems. Would you believe this made a few people upset?

Bottom line: Major labels have lost their marketplace dominance due to technological advances and even a change in cultural attitudes, and they have no idea what to do.


I'm going to quote you on this in my blog, if you don't mind. You've just said it all, I think. Very Happy

_________________
INTELLECT AND ROMANCE
OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM

Smokemonster
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
MoreOfTheSame
Vintage Newbie


Saellys wrote:
MoreOfTheSame wrote:
Exactly! They are having absolutely no regard for the audience (or to use their language, the consumer demographic), and are really only concerned with the business and finance aspect of the industry. These days it's to the point where the fact that they're selling music is just a mere coincidence.

Their business model is based on selling CDs. Before high-speed connections and CD-R drives were readily available to the masses, your only avenues for finding new music were music television and radio, and largely CDs were only available in music and electronic stores. Basically, any label that wasn't a multi-million dollar company had little chance of being able to sell their wares in Circut City or get a song by their new artist on the radio. In other words, those with the most money had the market eating out of their hands. Now remember when CDs used to be $19.99?

Likewise, any band that dreamt of fame and fortune had to sign to the large labels for sky-high advances (that they would later have to pay back) and poor to nonexistant royalty rates, record in the most expensive studios with producers that charged millions of dollars and 5%+ of album sales, and then spend even more money to shoot a music video for MTV and get their song on the radio. Your record label became your credit union basically; they made a fortune off of any profits you earned in order to pay back the aforementioned expenses, and you were making less money than the clerk at 7-11. TLC is proof of this. They were the most successful R&B act of the mid-1990's, and in 1997 members were filing for bankruptcy because they were only making $0.10 an album.

Flash forward to around 1999 to 2000. Cable modems become available for the mass public as an alternative to the 56k and 28.8k modems that had been the best thing available beforehand, allowing you to download information faster to your home computer than ever before. Sound capabilities are improving on computers, enabling recording audio directly onto your computer. Online retailers such as Amazon are coming into there own, where you can buy anything from cars to clothing to the new Sandra Bullock movie at lower prices directly from home. CD-R drives and blank CD-Rs begin to decline in price as well, giving you a more viable alternative than clunky Zip disks for backing up your computer. Oh, by the way, you also have the option of burning audio CDs with audio files.

Would you believe that this kept record label executives up at night for a few years?

Look at things now. CD production costs are the lowest they've ever been thanks to increases in technology. Advances in home recording can enable anyone with any musical idea to record music without even needing instruments (ie MIDI). Anyone who wishes to sell a band's music can sell online without ever having to talk to a wholesale distributor and promote them for free on websites like Myspace and Purevolume.

In other words, major labels, radio, and MTV aren't really needed anymore. As a result,

-MTV has turned into a lifestyle network for teenagers.

-FM radio has tried to recoup losses with advertising, and as result begat the quickly growing niche market of satellite radio, where for a small fee you can listen to radio with more choices and no commercials.

-Major labels are panicking to find songs that will make them a quick buck to survive the next quarter (as it takes too much time to develop talented artists like Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, and Paul McCartney, who have been incredibly successful musicians for over thirty years). Meanwhile, in an attempt to maintain some hold on the marketplace, campaigns against file-sharing are launched, with labels doing everything from suing file-sharing companies and consumers, selling streaming music services online for outrageous prices, selling music online in "protected formats', copy-protecting CDs with technology than can be bypassed with a sharpie, and burning spyware onto CDs that can crash computer systems. Would you believe this made a few people upset?

Bottom line: Major labels have lost their marketplace dominance due to technological advances and even a change in cultural attitudes, and they have no idea what to do.


I'm going to quote you on this in my blog, if you don't mind. You've just said it all, I think. Very Happy


Not a problem. Very Happy
Joined: 02 Sep 2003 | Posts: 2455 | Location: Grapevine, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
placidian
Sea Post King


There's a similar topic on the Rilo Kiley forums, with question/answer form that may help you in your research:
http://www.rilokiley.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7073

_________________
"If those are my last words, I can do better."
Joined: 12 Dec 2004 | Posts: 414 | Location: houston
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
starbucksgod
Vintage Newbie


i dl free music files but very rarely songs that i dont have rights (or i own the CD basically) but its easier downloading the song then ripping the song from my CD.
_________________
But I cannot discover any advantage except in honor, in glory, and in right action. Therefore I consider these goals to be primary and supreme over all others.
Cicero
Joined: 09 Jun 2005 | Posts: 3611 | Location: San Diego
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TheAntrider
Protocol Droid


I buy too many CDs. I love packaging, and I want to help the bands. That said, I'll take random mp3s to test bands (this is often made easy by bands who willingly give up a couple of songs on their Web sites), or I look for rarities.

But to say I haven't gotten entire CDs from friends or given entire CDs to friends would be a complete lie. There was a night a few weeks ago that a friend and I swapped a few gigabytes of music in just a few hours ...

But I think CDs should be purchased properly when possible. I think it's lame when people have money and still download instead of buying.

No real conclusions here other than that. That's all I got for now ...

_________________
My photography:www.jamiemphoto.com

You can't spell awesome without emo...backwards! -Julie
definingawesome (11:44:11 PM): Eisley shivers our timbers
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 | Posts: 25184 | Location: East Texas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
im the sea king
Golly, Poster


Saellys wrote:

Note how Eisley have released an entire EP for free to anyone who wants it. Do a P2P search for Eisley and the majority of the results will be those songs. Also, check out my topic in this forum on Jane Siberry, who allows people to download tracks from her online store for free.



where be this free ep?

_________________
its going to be LEGEN


wait for it


DARY!
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 | Posts: 563 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Twnty4Stvns
Golly, Poster


Marie B wrote:
If I want a song or two, I'm not going to pay for the entire CD unless I really, really like the artist or if they're a small, unknown band. I bought every single Snow Patrol and Eisley CD I could find, and I did the same for Ash. Big bands, though . . no thanks.

If I want a Madonna single -- which is never gonna happen -- I'm sure not going to put more money in her pocket for one lousy song.

I don't justify it, really. That's just how it is, and I don't even think about whether it's right or wrong anymore - I think about whether I can afford to buy a couple CDs every week or not.

Hey, songs are 99 cents a piece on itunes, you don't hafta pay for the entire cd

I think downloading free music is stealing. Like the original post said, you can't walk out of a store with a cd in your hand without paying for it, that's stealing. Taking music that you don't own, tangible or not, is stealing. Swapping several gigs of music is stealing because you don't own each other's music. It not only sucks for the bands out there that need that money to keep performing and making money, it's illegal. You just can't argue with the law, whether unjust or not. If you think that the law against murder isn't fair, you still cannot murder, or you'll be thrown in jail. The law isn't relative to everybody, it's a standard for every human that walks on american soil. You're question is ridiculous, "how do you justify it?" Basically you're asking, "how do you make something that's wrong be right in your eyes so it doesn't weigh on your conscience?"

A whole lot of people talk about how purchasing the music doesn't help the band in any way, they would get like 9.3 cents a song, or whatever...but if you purchase it, someone has a record of you purchasing it, and it goes toward the general popularity of the album/band. The record company will see how much money they made off of the band, and that gives the band more play, more touring ops, etc, etc....

Sorry, I didn't have time to read everyone's mile-long list of 'wrong-making-rightnesses,' but I just thought I'd add the other side...

I don't mean to be a jerk, I just feel that rationalizing our actions until we come up with an illogical conclusion that seems to suit us enough to continue to do what is wrong, is absurd.

I'm not a fan of doing things until they're proven wrong, I am a fan of not doing things until they are proven right.

_________________
I'll never be cool enough

Joined: 19 Nov 2005 | Posts: 634 | Location: Corpus Christi, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Marie B
Sea Post King


Actually, a lot of the songs that I download weren't available on iTunes (and were rare even on Kazaa and such) when I downloaded them.

Now that they're popular or whatever, I'm not going to delete the file and pay $.99 for it just because.

_________________
so i says to mavis, i says . .
Joined: 14 Oct 2004 | Posts: 239 | Location: Addison, Texas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group