if you tape a song off the radio is it stealing? are the mixes we did in our cd swap on here contributing to theft?
Technically, yeah that's theft. Anytime you assume ownership of something that's licensed-based, it's theft. That's why software companies have to develop or buy really secure licensing apps to secure their shit. Otherwise, people just end up stealing it by downloading it from someone else who has a single licensed copy.
I understand that record companies illegally pay radio to play certain songs and do all kinds of shitty things, but that's how it is. It doesn't change the fact that you're stealing when you download. No one is entitled to hear any music they want....you (and others) talk about this like it's your civil right to hear/see any art you want. It's not.
i still buy cd's. if i download, it's only to see if i like it. i listen for a week, delete, then either buy or move on. if record companies werent ILLEGALLY paying radio stations to only play their blockbuster babies, i wouldnt have to do this. if i like, i buy. but i buy from a used cd shop... which means the record company sees no money from the sale. am i stealing then?
LOL every band nowadays has a website and/or myspace page where they let you preview their work. No one is forcing you to download anything.
Technically, yeah that's theft. Anytime you assume ownership of something that's licensed-based, it's theft. That's why software companies have to develop or buy really secure licensing apps to secure their shit. Otherwise, people just end up stealing it by downloading it from someone else who has a single licensed copy.
I understand that record companies illegally pay radio to play certain songs and do all kinds of shitty things, but that's how it is. It doesn't change the fact that you're stealing when you download. No one is entitled to hear any music they want....you (and others) talk about this like it's your civil right to hear/see any art you want. It's not.
see, i dont buy that for a second. the way i understand it, you can record anything you want, as long as you dont use it to personal profit without permission. thus, you can tape a tv show or a song, you just cant turn around and sell the copy to a friend. i was under the impression it was the distribution, not the possession, that was criminal.
see, i dont buy that for a second. the way i understand it, you can record anything you want, as long as you dont use it to personal profit without permission. thus, you can tape a tv show or a song, you just cant turn around and sell the copy to a friend. i was under the impression it was the distribution, not the possession, that was criminal.
It's theft if you assume ownership and then distribute it out to other people. That's the point. It doesn't matter if you make $0 in profit or $100 from that distribution. The fact that you're distributing it out to others is technically theft.
I don't think the examples you gave are bad either. Everyone shares stuff with a few friends now and then, so I don't consider people doing a small cd share thieves. But it's on such a large scale with the internet, so it becomes a different story. Not all examples can be compared in black and white, right or wrong like this. There are degrees of theft, which is why we have that accounted for in law.
It's theft if you assume ownership and then distribute it out to other people. That's the point. It doesn't matter if you make $0 in profit or $100 from that distribution. The fact that you're distributing it out to others is technically theft.
I don't think the examples you gave are bad either. Everyone shares stuff with a few friends now and then, so I don't consider people doing a small cd share thieves. But it's on such a large scale with the internet, so it becomes a different story. Not all examples can be compared in black and white, right or wrong like this. There are degrees of theft, which is why we have that accounted for in law.
which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero internet law is a tricky field, they're still figuring it all out.
regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?
which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero internet law is a tricky field, they're still figuring it all out.
regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?
haha so since you're stealing from people who you consider bigger thieves, that somehow cancels out what you're doing and makes it ok. That's a bullshit argument like I said from the beginning. It always boils down to that.
If some guy kills my entire family, does it make it sensible for me to go rape his sister and say "hey, I only raped his sister...he killed my entire family. So his whining about the rape doesn't really phase me. Which crime should we be worried about here???"? No, it's not sensible. And we should be worried about both crimes.
which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero internet law is a tricky field, they're still figuring it all out.
regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?
Also, I forgot to say that I do agree that artists can benefit from exposure due to file sharing. Again, that's why I wouldn't call people doing a cd swap thieves. We all share music, most of us in hopes that the artists will benefit from it, and the people we share it with will go out and support the artists if they like them enough.
It's just a different story when it comes to the much larger scale of people making torrentz of entire discographies that people are downloading, sharing, and keeping, and not buying cds. That's really what the record companies are complaining about, and they are right to complain (no matter how many shitty business practices they have).
And overall, I still think it hurts the artists. Most of them do not embrace file sharing at all, but very few speak out about it like I said before. They're kind of stuck in hard place.
The whole price fixing scandal, then suing the fans, and then Sony putting those hidden trackers on their cds...what a mess.
I can certainly see why there is a backlash amongst the fans. I get mad when I have to pay over $11 for a new release. It just isn't right. Lower the price of the cds and then justification to buy them will come back, because they are cheap.
************************************************************************
For Those About To Rock !
here's an article about rick rubin and how he is now part head of columbia and what he wants to do to change everything. i found most of it interesting, some of it not.
1 Old remastered released with mono and stereo sound and being charged doubled price for these. any of the monkees new releases are €29.
Why is it that you can get Doors, Dylan and other oldies for very cheap prices while others like the stones and beatles are going for €15.
I love how you pick two bands that are completely different to use as an example for your argument.
I used those two as examples because those are the two biggest artists in, basically, the two main cliche genres in rock right now. You have the fake "hard rock" that Nickelback plays, and you have the wannabe Blink 182 bands such as Fall Out Boy under the emo category. They're not the same, bnut nearly any popular rock band today falls under those - Buckcherry, Hinder, etc. falling under Nickelback's genre, and Panic At The Disco, etc. falling under the emo category.
i still buy cd's. if i download, it's only to see if i like it
That's the same way with me. Yeah, it's stealing - I didn't pay for their copyrighted material. But if I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I delete it. Yes, some people deem that as bad, but if you buy as many CD's as I do It's defintily not hurting the music industry. In fact, it's helping, because I wouldn't listen to half the music I listen to right now if I had to pay $.99 just to hear the song on iTunes.
Record Companies are some of the most greedy, corporate, sack of shit companies in the world today, and I think it's fucking hilarious that their complaining and blaming file sharing on the reason for their drop in sales. Sign good artists, promote different types of bands. Honestly, if a band like Wilco or the Strokes or one of the more popular rock bands of the last couple years got half the promotion that the record company put into the new Fall Out BOy CD, they'd be selling out arenas, from my perspective. But record companies don't want to risk it, and just promote horrible artists that record two songs for an album, make the rest filler that sounds the same, and release it so everyone buys. Back when the record companies promoted talented artists, such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Rage, Smashing Pumpkins, they were artists who cared about the quality of their music - they put their music before money, for the most part, and look what happened - you had albums that were solid from start to finish. I feel absolutely not remorse for the record companies, and I hope they all go bankrupt until they start promoting worthwhile bands that aren't the new trend.
This is an interesting argument, but I don't know if music buyers will ever feel bad for the music industry. The corporate heads obviously are after one thing-money. And even though there seems to be a mass of shit music coming out now, there always has been. Even when bands like Pearl Jam, Rage, and Soundgarden were at their prime, there were other generic and manufactured acts that were just as popular. People talk about the "good old days" but the good old days had their fair share of forgettable acts. I think labels like Sub Pop and Kill Rock Stars are still more respectable in the way they handle their bands. It seems more intimate and hands on, where as the huge record labels like Sony will shove crap down people's throats, caring about style over substance. I haven't listened to the radio at all in about 3 years. It's interesting though cause even indie stations in California will play obscure bands but include acts like Pearl Jam into their rotation-obviously PJ isn't an indie band. There's no traces of Fall Out Boy or whatever hated acts are popular now, so they really aren't my concern. I do feel sorry for the state of culture in general though, when even teenagers are indulging in things like High School Musical, whereas teens in the 90's could listen to Nirvana or Alice in Chains. What a difference a short decade and a half makes.
This is an interesting argument, but I don't know if music buyers will ever feel bad for the music industry. The corporate heads obviously are after one thing-money.
what corporation or business doesn't have a bottom line of making money? does anyone think "hey, let me start a business so i can lose money?"
what corporation or business doesn't have a bottom line of making money? does anyone think "hey, let me start a business so i can lose money?"
exactly my point-that's why consumers wouldn't feel sorry for the music industry anyways. The companies don't care about what fans want, it's just what is the quickest way to make cash. I think it's a general feeling to not feel any sympathy for record labels, otherwise people wouldn't be looking for cheaper, free, or illegal ways to get music
Record Companies are some of the most greedy, corporate, sack of shit companies in the world today, and I think it's fucking hilarious that their complaining and blaming file sharing on the reason for their drop in sales.
no offense, but i think you are naive if you honestly believe that the rise in file sharing (and the fact that blank cds are cheap and there is a cd burner in 99% of computers now) has had no effect on the volume of cd sales.
no offense, but i think you are naive if you honestly believe that the rise in file sharing (and the fact that blank cds are cheap and there is a cd burner in 99% of computers now) has had no effect on the volume of cd sales.
Yep, it has an obvious effect, but also the fact that downloading has allowed people to pick and choose certain songs over buying CD's is a huge deal. I prefer listening to a whole album instead of picking out popular songs, but because of all the choices in downloading people have now, the CD format and its sales are suffering
Yep, it has an obvious effect, but also the fact that downloading has allowed people to pick and choose certain songs over buying CD's is a huge deal. I prefer listening to a whole album instead of picking out popular songs, but because of all the choices in downloading people have now, the CD format and its sales are suffering
i think that while the ipod has been an amazing invention, itunes, despite being the 2nd or 3rd largest distributor of music, is helping the slow decline of album sales. why buy a whole cd when you can just be instantly gratified by getting a song from itunes for 99 cents (or DL from a file share network)?
personally, i am an album person. i still call cds albums. i listen to them from start to finish. i have an ipod, but i rip all my cds so i can have everything with me at work because it is obviously easier to bring an ipod with thousands of songs on it than it is to bring in 50 cds to work.
i think that while the ipod has been an amazing invention, itunes, despite being the 2nd or 3rd largest distributor of music, is helping the slow decline of album sales. why buy a whole cd when you can just be instantly gratified by getting a song from itunes for 99 cents (or DL from a file share network)?
personally, i am an album person. i still call cds albums. i listen to them from start to finish. i have an ipod, but i rip all my cds so i can have everything with me at work because it is obviously easier to bring an ipod with thousands of songs on it than it is to bring in 50 cds to work.
and welcome to the board.
hey thanks alot for the welcome... i feel the same way about ipods/mp3 players. They are great for convenience, but I really love listening to records-either vinyl or cd's since I'm an album person myself
Saturnal is 100% spot-on. The idea that stealing music is okay because you've deemed it a lesser infraction than that which the record industry is guilty of is a bunch of rationalized nonsense.
Please explain how the record companies have been "breaking many many laws for years." If you think it's simply because the artists don't see a profit from individual CD sales (which isn't entirely true), then your argument doesn't really add up. You make it sound as though the record labels are simply pocketing a check to which the band is legally entitled, when the fact of the matter is, these bands on whose behalf you're arguing have almost assuredly willfully signed a contract entitling the record label to whatever percentage of the profits they're taking, so the argument that record companies are denying artists money which is rightfully theirs is really pretty naive. You may disagree with how the pie was divided, but then, it wasn't really your pie to divide, now, was it?
Say Pearl Jam records a new album; what typically happens is, J Records (or whoever) pays Pearl Jam whatever flat rate is agreed upon (for a band like Pearl Jam it's probably a pretty respectable hunk of change) to record the album, and then it's decided between the band and the label where the profits beyond that will go. Usually a minimal amount goes to the band (they've already been paid), some to the distributor, the label, the store selling the CD, etc. The hope of the record company is that the CD ultimately rakes in more cash than they paid the artist, at which point they begin making profit, which any lunkhead with a Business 101 course under his belt will tell you is the most basic of all business goals.
Additionally, the argument that not buying CDs only hurts record companies can't make sense, because if J Records pays Pearl Jam a couple million bones to record an album, and then nobody buys the album, lo and behold, J Records is out a couple million bones, and thus the amount of support they're going to want to give Pearl Jam in the future is going to be decidedly less considering they're not moving any units. Would you want to drop a bunch of overhead on a product that's not selling? Not likely.
Most all pro-downloading arguments are just rationalized versions of, "It's cheaper to download than buy, so that's what I'm going to do," and the concept that record companies are conspiring to screw everyone over when what they really should be doing is trying to fill the world with wonderful music for us all to cherish is a bunch of idealistic, predictable, anti-corporate hippie crap. Record labels aren't music charities.
I don't feel like record labels are trying to screw me over. I just think they're idiots for not adapting to this generation of music business, and then whining and complaining that file sharing is "ruining the industry" when they're too moronic to change their way of how they do business to fight it.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
Also, I forgot to say that I do agree that artists can benefit from exposure due to file sharing. Again, that's why I wouldn't call people doing a cd swap thieves. We all share music, most of us in hopes that the artists will benefit from it, and the people we share it with will go out and support the artists if they like them enough.
It's just a different story when it comes to the much larger scale of people making torrentz of entire discographies that people are downloading, sharing, and keeping, and not buying cds. That's really what the record companies are complaining about, and they are right to complain (no matter how many shitty business practices they have).
And overall, I still think it hurts the artists. Most of them do not embrace file sharing at all, but very few speak out about it like I said before. They're kind of stuck in hard place.
change is like a wave. anything that gets the industry to wise the fuck up and adapt is good in my book. call it civil disobedience if you will. breaking laws that are fucking stupid to change the way things are done.
and i still dont think downloading is stealing. my post was saying even taking your stance as correct, i still do not feel sorry for the music industry. your example is flawed... if it went more like "dude murdered my family, and then some other guy shot him." no, id not feel very bad for the guy. ive been getting raped by record companies for years. so i dont really feel bad that they're hemmoraghing money becos they can't keep up. since i discovered used cd shops, i rarely buy new cd's anyway. i notice you've never responded to that question... arent used cd shops even worse than downloading? not only is the record company and artist not getting money, somebody else is profiting off their music!
Used cd shops don't make 1000 copies of each cd and sell them. They RE-distribute per license. It's totally different from what happens online. I didn't respond to the question because it's so outrageous and silly that I didn't think it really deserved an answer.
Downloading music may be bad but take comfort in the hilariously bad analogies people are coming up with to draw parallels. How you can get from "downloading music" to "raping my sister" is beyond me.
Used cd shops don't make 1000 copies of each cd and sell them. They RE-distribute per license. It's totally different from what happens online. I didn't respond to the question because it's so outrageous and silly that I didn't think it really deserved an answer.
im wondering where you draw the line... how many copies can you make for a friend before it goes from sharing to stealing? is that how you draw your distinction? it's purely by quantity of distribution? i thought it was about depriving them of their profits?
i still buy cd's. if i download, it's only to see if i like it. i listen for a week, delete, then either buy or move on. if record companies werent ILLEGALLY paying radio stations to only play their blockbuster babies, i wouldnt have to do this. if i like, i buy. but i buy from a used cd shop... which means the record company sees no money from the sale. am i stealing then?
not really. I think I have made my point clear I have no issues with used CD shops and those individuals who may make a copy or 2 for friends. I don't know how record companies illegally paying radio stations has anything to do with this. it has been well established that record companies have shady business practices.
I applaud you if in fact you really download like you have said. However what do you think of the 99.5% of the people who don't do this? You know, the teens and college students?
You also must have a kick ass used CD shop if you are able to find every CD you like.
So, you people who download music - how do you play that music? Do you burn it onto a CD-R? Do you play it on your computer? Your iPod? Aren't Memorex, Sony, Maxell, Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, etc. also giant evil corporations that are conspiring to take all your money? How do you justify buying a spindle of 50 CD-R's from Memorex, or an iPod from Apple, while at the same time writing off record labels as self-serving corporate manipulators? Aren't they all just companies that are trying to do the best business they can?
No one is saying that downloading music is on the same level morally as raping someone. The point was that simply because infraction #1 is a lesser infraction than infraction #2 doesn't mean it ceases to be an infraction.
There's nothing wrong with used CD shops. The record company has already seen their money from the initial sale of those CDs, and there is ultimately still only one owner of the CD. As long as one copy sold at retail still means only one copy in circulation, things are on the up-and-up.
no offense, but i think you are naive if you honestly believe that the rise in file sharing (and the fact that blank cds are cheap and there is a cd burner in 99% of computers now) has had no effect on the volume of cd sales.
It is, I'm not denying that. But you can't tell me that if all of the popular artists in today's music did not fit under one of three or four cliche sounds and recorded albums with one or two songs just to sell the album, that record sales would be higher? If they were still promoting rock bands that actually had character, and didn't sound like every other band on MTV, and recorded an album to make music, not money, they would have higher sales, regardless of file sharing. Would it be as high as it was in the '60s or '90s? Of course not, but people would still go out and buy CDs. I don't listen to the music, thank God, but I would feel cheated spending $13 on a CD that had only one song that had more than an hour of effort put into it.
Comments
I understand that record companies illegally pay radio to play certain songs and do all kinds of shitty things, but that's how it is. It doesn't change the fact that you're stealing when you download. No one is entitled to hear any music they want....you (and others) talk about this like it's your civil right to hear/see any art you want. It's not.
i dont have a myspace. but when i can check stuff out on their website, i do.
see, i dont buy that for a second. the way i understand it, you can record anything you want, as long as you dont use it to personal profit without permission. thus, you can tape a tv show or a song, you just cant turn around and sell the copy to a friend. i was under the impression it was the distribution, not the possession, that was criminal.
hahaha jesus christ dude. you don't need a myspace page to see band pages unless they set them as private which none of them do as far as I know.
I don't think the examples you gave are bad either. Everyone shares stuff with a few friends now and then, so I don't consider people doing a small cd share thieves. But it's on such a large scale with the internet, so it becomes a different story. Not all examples can be compared in black and white, right or wrong like this. There are degrees of theft, which is why we have that accounted for in law.
which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero
regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?
If some guy kills my entire family, does it make it sensible for me to go rape his sister and say "hey, I only raped his sister...he killed my entire family. So his whining about the rape doesn't really phase me. Which crime should we be worried about here???"? No, it's not sensible. And we should be worried about both crimes.
It's just a different story when it comes to the much larger scale of people making torrentz of entire discographies that people are downloading, sharing, and keeping, and not buying cds. That's really what the record companies are complaining about, and they are right to complain (no matter how many shitty business practices they have).
And overall, I still think it hurts the artists. Most of them do not embrace file sharing at all, but very few speak out about it like I said before. They're kind of stuck in hard place.
I can certainly see why there is a backlash amongst the fans. I get mad when I have to pay over $11 for a new release. It just isn't right. Lower the price of the cds and then justification to buy them will come back, because they are cheap.
For Those About To Rock !
Art changes people. People change the world.
here's an article about rick rubin and how he is now part head of columbia and what he wants to do to change everything. i found most of it interesting, some of it not.
1 Old remastered released with mono and stereo sound and being charged doubled price for these. any of the monkees new releases are €29.
Why is it that you can get Doors, Dylan and other oldies for very cheap prices while others like the stones and beatles are going for €15.
I used those two as examples because those are the two biggest artists in, basically, the two main cliche genres in rock right now. You have the fake "hard rock" that Nickelback plays, and you have the wannabe Blink 182 bands such as Fall Out Boy under the emo category. They're not the same, bnut nearly any popular rock band today falls under those - Buckcherry, Hinder, etc. falling under Nickelback's genre, and Panic At The Disco, etc. falling under the emo category.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
That's the same way with me. Yeah, it's stealing - I didn't pay for their copyrighted material. But if I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I delete it. Yes, some people deem that as bad, but if you buy as many CD's as I do It's defintily not hurting the music industry. In fact, it's helping, because I wouldn't listen to half the music I listen to right now if I had to pay $.99 just to hear the song on iTunes.
Record Companies are some of the most greedy, corporate, sack of shit companies in the world today, and I think it's fucking hilarious that their complaining and blaming file sharing on the reason for their drop in sales. Sign good artists, promote different types of bands. Honestly, if a band like Wilco or the Strokes or one of the more popular rock bands of the last couple years got half the promotion that the record company put into the new Fall Out BOy CD, they'd be selling out arenas, from my perspective. But record companies don't want to risk it, and just promote horrible artists that record two songs for an album, make the rest filler that sounds the same, and release it so everyone buys. Back when the record companies promoted talented artists, such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Rage, Smashing Pumpkins, they were artists who cared about the quality of their music - they put their music before money, for the most part, and look what happened - you had albums that were solid from start to finish. I feel absolutely not remorse for the record companies, and I hope they all go bankrupt until they start promoting worthwhile bands that aren't the new trend.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
what corporation or business doesn't have a bottom line of making money? does anyone think "hey, let me start a business so i can lose money?"
no offense, but i think you are naive if you honestly believe that the rise in file sharing (and the fact that blank cds are cheap and there is a cd burner in 99% of computers now) has had no effect on the volume of cd sales.
i think that while the ipod has been an amazing invention, itunes, despite being the 2nd or 3rd largest distributor of music, is helping the slow decline of album sales. why buy a whole cd when you can just be instantly gratified by getting a song from itunes for 99 cents (or DL from a file share network)?
personally, i am an album person. i still call cds albums. i listen to them from start to finish. i have an ipod, but i rip all my cds so i can have everything with me at work because it is obviously easier to bring an ipod with thousands of songs on it than it is to bring in 50 cds to work.
and welcome to the board.
Please explain how the record companies have been "breaking many many laws for years." If you think it's simply because the artists don't see a profit from individual CD sales (which isn't entirely true), then your argument doesn't really add up. You make it sound as though the record labels are simply pocketing a check to which the band is legally entitled, when the fact of the matter is, these bands on whose behalf you're arguing have almost assuredly willfully signed a contract entitling the record label to whatever percentage of the profits they're taking, so the argument that record companies are denying artists money which is rightfully theirs is really pretty naive. You may disagree with how the pie was divided, but then, it wasn't really your pie to divide, now, was it?
Say Pearl Jam records a new album; what typically happens is, J Records (or whoever) pays Pearl Jam whatever flat rate is agreed upon (for a band like Pearl Jam it's probably a pretty respectable hunk of change) to record the album, and then it's decided between the band and the label where the profits beyond that will go. Usually a minimal amount goes to the band (they've already been paid), some to the distributor, the label, the store selling the CD, etc. The hope of the record company is that the CD ultimately rakes in more cash than they paid the artist, at which point they begin making profit, which any lunkhead with a Business 101 course under his belt will tell you is the most basic of all business goals.
Additionally, the argument that not buying CDs only hurts record companies can't make sense, because if J Records pays Pearl Jam a couple million bones to record an album, and then nobody buys the album, lo and behold, J Records is out a couple million bones, and thus the amount of support they're going to want to give Pearl Jam in the future is going to be decidedly less considering they're not moving any units. Would you want to drop a bunch of overhead on a product that's not selling? Not likely.
Most all pro-downloading arguments are just rationalized versions of, "It's cheaper to download than buy, so that's what I'm going to do," and the concept that record companies are conspiring to screw everyone over when what they really should be doing is trying to fill the world with wonderful music for us all to cherish is a bunch of idealistic, predictable, anti-corporate hippie crap. Record labels aren't music charities.
change is like a wave. anything that gets the industry to wise the fuck up and adapt is good in my book. call it civil disobedience if you will. breaking laws that are fucking stupid to change the way things are done.
and i still dont think downloading is stealing. my post was saying even taking your stance as correct, i still do not feel sorry for the music industry. your example is flawed... if it went more like "dude murdered my family, and then some other guy shot him." no, id not feel very bad for the guy. ive been getting raped by record companies for years. so i dont really feel bad that they're hemmoraghing money becos they can't keep up. since i discovered used cd shops, i rarely buy new cd's anyway. i notice you've never responded to that question... arent used cd shops even worse than downloading? not only is the record company and artist not getting money, somebody else is profiting off their music!
Used cd shops don't make 1000 copies of each cd and sell them. They RE-distribute per license. It's totally different from what happens online. I didn't respond to the question because it's so outrageous and silly that I didn't think it really deserved an answer.
im wondering where you draw the line... how many copies can you make for a friend before it goes from sharing to stealing? is that how you draw your distinction? it's purely by quantity of distribution? i thought it was about depriving them of their profits?
I applaud you if in fact you really download like you have said. However what do you think of the 99.5% of the people who don't do this? You know, the teens and college students?
You also must have a kick ass used CD shop if you are able to find every CD you like.
No one is saying that downloading music is on the same level morally as raping someone. The point was that simply because infraction #1 is a lesser infraction than infraction #2 doesn't mean it ceases to be an infraction.
There's nothing wrong with used CD shops. The record company has already seen their money from the initial sale of those CDs, and there is ultimately still only one owner of the CD. As long as one copy sold at retail still means only one copy in circulation, things are on the up-and-up.
It is, I'm not denying that. But you can't tell me that if all of the popular artists in today's music did not fit under one of three or four cliche sounds and recorded albums with one or two songs just to sell the album, that record sales would be higher? If they were still promoting rock bands that actually had character, and didn't sound like every other band on MTV, and recorded an album to make music, not money, they would have higher sales, regardless of file sharing. Would it be as high as it was in the '60s or '90s? Of course not, but people would still go out and buy CDs. I don't listen to the music, thank God, but I would feel cheated spending $13 on a CD that had only one song that had more than an hour of effort put into it.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08