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 dunno what you're not understanding exactly. Used cd shops sell cd's that at one point or another were purchased new. They're not depriving anyone of profits.
Where I draw the line is when someone distributes un-licensed copies. Used record stores don't do that. But it does happen online on a huge scale. That's where I draw the line.
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.
I'm not comparing those two things at all. I'm pointing out the bullshit logic that people present when they say there's nothing wrong with downloading music. There is something wrong with it, and just because it usually happens in response to even greater crimes by record companies doesn't make it right.
Since music has been available to PURCHASE (that's quite recent, 60-80 years at the most probably), people have 'borrowed' it. it's a fact.
either by taping,copying CDs, just going around someone's house to listen to the latest LP..
it's HOW the whole thing works..radios, even more so today where DJs have no input on the setlists, offer only a tiny portion of the whole output. the rest is only ever heard of by word of mouth.
the internet just means that you circle of music friends has got much wider than just the persons you physically know..that's actually a good thing because it means you can hear stuff that goes behind the little, narrow, community you're from (and having grown up in a small town, I'm glad I got the fuck out!)
the record companies these days, unlike 15+ years ago when they were RUN by people that actually cared about music, though trying to balance it with commercial, are only interested in profit:
if it was up to them, and there's MANY actions/lobbying that proves it, you'd get charged every time you listen to something, EVERY FUCKING TIME!, they're trying to do that right now!..forget about ownership of music, they have it and you're just renting!..not that artists would get any more money mind you..out of a $10 CD, they never get more than $1 as it is..
Also, the people that download/copy are the customers... most people that don't buy don't download either.. the figures about lost revenues are completely imaginary because 90%+ of what is downloaded would never have been bought in any case, and a lot of what's bought, especially in music, more of an argument for films, would never have been purchased if not first downloaded/copied.
people who download are the customers: the people who buy CDs, go to gigs, create the buzz...
so, yeah, technically, it's stealing.. but the whole industry has ALWAYS worked on the basis of people trying the product first (through radio, borrowing...), with always the possibility of abuse.
the difference is NOT the way the trying and distribution has changed, it's how the industry has gone much more greedy (I firmly believe the reason we didn't get official boots this year is because of the label they signed with.. labels didn't get money out of those, and they don't like it, so they stopped it)
the loss of revenue doesn't really come from downloading.. it comes from people spending their money, of which there's a limited amount, on other stuff that didn't exist before, like Video Games and DVDs (who also have their piracy problems, with far more legs than music, although not all founded either).
People still listen to music, still buy it.. but they're more clued in where the money goes and how they're exploited.. (the CD vs Tape/vinyl price is still stuck in my throat too, I'm old enough for remembering that), so they don't care the companies are losing and find alternative ways to get their music fix (and bands are making a lot more out of touring these days, that's why they don't complain about the downloading, or even go their own way with it, as they should).
Where did you get that "90%+"? Did you just make that up? Can I get the source for that please? How does one even begin to obtain a statistic like that?
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."
the record companies lost a huge suit over price fixing and price gouging consumers. they had to pay out millions and give a damage refund to anyone who applied. granted, it was only pennies to the amount we were all taken for, but they broke the law. they also have been illegally controlling radio by essentially bribing dj's to play only their mega sellers, which is why it is impossible to hear new music on the radio. the record companies are business run very shadily and they break many laws. they are now suffering the consequences of fucking over their target market. i have no sympath for them.
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.
i give it a week and then delete it. if i like it, i go buy the cd from a used cd shop. if i dont, it's gone. i do this becos i have no other recourse to hear new music. the record companies have illegally bought radio so you can only hear the 5 bands they have been paid to play (payola scandal).
I dunno what you're not understanding exactly. Used cd shops sell cd's that at one point or another were purchased new. They're not depriving anyone of profits.
Where I draw the line is when someone distributes un-licensed copies. Used record stores don't do that. But it does happen online on a huge scale. That's where I draw the line.
somebody had to buy the cd to put it online. they don't just magically appear in digital form there. someone bought that cd. so how many people are they allowed to share or re-sell it to before it becomes a crime?
Where did you get that "90%+"? Did you just make that up? Can I get the source for that please? How does one even begin to obtain a statistic like that?
i can speak from personal experience given everyone i've ever known... of the downloading they do... 90-95% of that downloaded music would NEVER have been purchased anyway. however, by downloading, that band and the record company have vastly increased the odds of my friends (and these are the ones who wont buy an album they already downloaded if they like, whereas i will) seeing the band live, grabbing another cd or ep next time they're in the shop, etc etc.
somebody had to buy the cd to put it online. they don't just magically appear in digital form there. someone bought that cd. so how many people are they allowed to share or re-sell it to before it becomes a crime?
LOL wtf is not getting through??
Yes, of course someone bought that cd...
AND BY MAKING UN-LICENSED COPIES OF THAT CD, THEY'VE COMMITTED A CRIME.
If you share one copy of a cd that you bought online, then it's not a crime. But nobody does that. No one puts up a cd for download, and confirms that the first person who downloaded that copy deletes it before they share it again. "File sharing" allows many people to download the same cd at the same time, which creates un-licensed copies by default.
Gotta tell ya, your own personal experience does not a valid statistic make. You can kill an entire argument by making an assertion like that with no backup.
But your policy of downloading and then deleting after a week seems fair to me. No one should be forced to purchase a product they're not familiar with, and if everyone used downloading as you did, I'm sure record companies would take very little issue with it.
i give it a week and then delete it. if i like it, i go buy the cd from a used cd shop. if i dont, it's gone. i do this becos i have no other recourse to hear new music. the record companies have illegally bought radio so you can only hear the 5 bands they have been paid to play (payola scandal).
sorry, but i find this to be a complete load of garbage. somehow you are able to rack up 25k+ posts on this message board but somehow are unable to read any of the thousands upon thousands of music websites or blogs (ie - pitchfork, tiny mix tapes, prefix, cokemachineglow, etc). you could simply go to one of the chain book stores and read basic magazines like rolling stone or spin or more 'indie' ones like magnet, et al to find about new bands. also, i find it very hard to believe you can't do a simple google or yahoo search when someone (or a lot of people) rave about a new artist or band? what about the X number of online radio stations such as last.fm, vodka radio or radio indie pop (to name a few)?
and correct me if i am wrong, but aren't you in a band? your comment about not having a myspace page was odd because i don't personally have an account but i know i can go to the page of a number of bands that do and they usually have 3-4 songs streaming.
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.
the "popular" artists all fit under three or four cliche sounds because the mass majority of the cd buying public buys what record labels feed them. it is that plain and simple. one band sells so labels go out and try to find X number of other bands that sound like that band. did you miss that part of the 90s when all the 2nd and 3rd wave "grunge" bands came out?
i don't buy the argument that rock music is the end all savior of the music industry. sure, it might be what you like, but a lot of people like rap or country or gospel or classical, etc. this isn't the 50s/60s when someone like elvis or chuck berry or the beatles would come along and, for lack of a better term, change the landscape of music. the way the us and the world is now there is just too much out there competing for each individual's dollar. you also have to take into effect that the cd buying public of 20 years ago is now 20 years older, so they might not buy as many albums. say your parents bought a ton of albums in the 80s when they were 30 and now they're 50 - maybe they don't buy as many (or any) albums. i know my mom bought tons of records and cassettes, but now she buys very few cds.
AND BY MAKING UN-LICENSED COPIES OF THAT CD, THEY'VE COMMITTED A CRIME.
If you share one copy of a cd that you bought online, then it's not a crime. But nobody does that. No one puts up a cd for download, and confirms that the first person who downloaded that copy deletes it before they share it again. "File sharing" allows many people to download the same cd at the same time, which creates un-licensed copies by default.
again, how is it un-licensed? i thought you could rip and burn a copy for a friend? or is that illegal too? if your friend makes a copy (if that's what you're getting at by saying you can't control what people who download your upload do) then have you committed a crime by burning it for a friend just becos you didn't foresee what he did with it?
how is burning a copy for a friend different from uploading to friends? you have a licensed copy which you have shared with others. you cannot control what your friend does with it any more than you can control what people downloading do with it. the only difference seems to be the number of people you're offering copies to.
Gotta tell ya, your own personal experience does not a valid statistic make. You can kill an entire argument by making an assertion like that with no backup.
But your policy of downloading and then deleting after a week seems fair to me. No one should be forced to purchase a product they're not familiar with, and if everyone used downloading as you did, I'm sure record companies would take very little issue with it.
well, i wasnt trying to validate his statistic. just saying it jives well with my experience. i dont know how you'd track that.
but yes, i feel my system is fair. if i had any other way to check music out, i'd do it.
sorry, but i find this to be a complete load of garbage. somehow you are able to rack up 25k+ posts on this message board but somehow are unable to read any of the thousands upon thousands of music websites or blogs (ie - pitchfork, tiny mix tapes, prefix, cokemachineglow, etc). you could simply go to one of the chain book stores and read basic magazines like rolling stone or spin or more 'indie' ones like magnet, et al to find about new bands. also, i find it very hard to believe you can't do a simple google or yahoo search when someone (or a lot of people) rave about a new artist or band? what about the X number of online radio stations such as last.fm, vodka radio or radio indie pop (to name a few)?
and correct me if i am wrong, but aren't you in a band? your comment about not having a myspace page was odd because i don't personally have an account but i know i can go to the page of a number of bands that do and they usually have 3-4 songs streaming.
im not in a band. if i went by what rolling stone told me to listen to, or those righteous pricks at pitchfork, id have had to burn all my cd's long ago. im sorry, but my ears write me a better music review than anything in a magazine. i get a lot of my new music tips from this forum right here though, and i do read online reviews. but i still download to check things out before going to buy. streaming songs off myspace is a pain in the ass... i dont listen to music on my computer and can't carry my laptop around all the time. i can load it to my ipod and listen to it for real on the train. if i dig, i buy. either way, it doesn't stay on my computer or my ipod. in fact, i dont have a single song in my itunes library or my ipod that is a download right now. online radio stations are an ok alternative, but im still stuck with the live streaming which doesn't work for me. i've got a feeling these bands would prefer me listening to them this way than not at all.
sorry, but i find this to be a complete load of garbage. somehow you are able to rack up 25k+ posts on this message board but somehow are unable to read any of the thousands upon thousands of music websites or blogs (ie - pitchfork, tiny mix tapes, prefix, cokemachineglow, etc). you could simply go to one of the chain book stores and read basic magazines like rolling stone or spin or more 'indie' ones like magnet, et al to find about new bands. also, i find it very hard to believe you can't do a simple google or yahoo search when someone (or a lot of people) rave about a new artist or band? what about the X number of online radio stations such as last.fm, vodka radio or radio indie pop (to name a few)?
and correct me if i am wrong, but aren't you in a band? your comment about not having a myspace page was odd because i don't personally have an account but i know i can go to the page of a number of bands that do and they usually have 3-4 songs streaming.
Acxtually, wihtouth any relevence to this general argument, I have this board open at wotk all the time cos I get really, bored, but I very rarely look at any music sites on-line to access new music. For some of us analogue dinosaurs, text is about as complicated as it gets.
if i went by what rolling stone told me to listen to, or those righteous pricks at pitchfork, id have had to burn all my cd's long ago.
i just used rolling stone as an example for a basic search on new music as you said you have no access to new music. i rarely read it anymore, but from time to time they did cover some decent stuff.
and i really don't get all the pitchfork hate. i've been a user of their site for years now and while they are awful preachy and pretentious (and sometimes formulaic in their reviews to the point where i can guess a rough score before opening the review), they have helped me find tons of new bands. if something gets an 8 or higher or gets into their best new music section, it is pretty much worth checking out (in my opinion).
oh, i would recommend insound.com for tons of free mp3s. they're also a great place to order cds from, but that's only if you want to buy new ones.
Comments
I dunno what you're not understanding exactly. Used cd shops sell cd's that at one point or another were purchased new. They're not depriving anyone of profits.
Where I draw the line is when someone distributes un-licensed copies. Used record stores don't do that. But it does happen online on a huge scale. That's where I draw the line.
either by taping,copying CDs, just going around someone's house to listen to the latest LP..
it's HOW the whole thing works..radios, even more so today where DJs have no input on the setlists, offer only a tiny portion of the whole output. the rest is only ever heard of by word of mouth.
the internet just means that you circle of music friends has got much wider than just the persons you physically know..that's actually a good thing because it means you can hear stuff that goes behind the little, narrow, community you're from (and having grown up in a small town, I'm glad I got the fuck out!)
the record companies these days, unlike 15+ years ago when they were RUN by people that actually cared about music, though trying to balance it with commercial, are only interested in profit:
if it was up to them, and there's MANY actions/lobbying that proves it, you'd get charged every time you listen to something, EVERY FUCKING TIME!, they're trying to do that right now!..forget about ownership of music, they have it and you're just renting!..not that artists would get any more money mind you..out of a $10 CD, they never get more than $1 as it is..
Also, the people that download/copy are the customers... most people that don't buy don't download either.. the figures about lost revenues are completely imaginary because 90%+ of what is downloaded would never have been bought in any case, and a lot of what's bought, especially in music, more of an argument for films, would never have been purchased if not first downloaded/copied.
people who download are the customers: the people who buy CDs, go to gigs, create the buzz...
so, yeah, technically, it's stealing.. but the whole industry has ALWAYS worked on the basis of people trying the product first (through radio, borrowing...), with always the possibility of abuse.
the difference is NOT the way the trying and distribution has changed, it's how the industry has gone much more greedy (I firmly believe the reason we didn't get official boots this year is because of the label they signed with.. labels didn't get money out of those, and they don't like it, so they stopped it)
the loss of revenue doesn't really come from downloading.. it comes from people spending their money, of which there's a limited amount, on other stuff that didn't exist before, like Video Games and DVDs (who also have their piracy problems, with far more legs than music, although not all founded either).
People still listen to music, still buy it.. but they're more clued in where the money goes and how they're exploited.. (the CD vs Tape/vinyl price is still stuck in my throat too, I'm old enough for remembering that), so they don't care the companies are losing and find alternative ways to get their music fix (and bands are making a lot more out of touring these days, that's why they don't complain about the downloading, or even go their own way with it, as they should).
the record companies lost a huge suit over price fixing and price gouging consumers. they had to pay out millions and give a damage refund to anyone who applied. granted, it was only pennies to the amount we were all taken for, but they broke the law. they also have been illegally controlling radio by essentially bribing dj's to play only their mega sellers, which is why it is impossible to hear new music on the radio. the record companies are business run very shadily and they break many laws. they are now suffering the consequences of fucking over their target market. i have no sympath for them.
i give it a week and then delete it. if i like it, i go buy the cd from a used cd shop. if i dont, it's gone. i do this becos i have no other recourse to hear new music. the record companies have illegally bought radio so you can only hear the 5 bands they have been paid to play (payola scandal).
somebody had to buy the cd to put it online. they don't just magically appear in digital form there. someone bought that cd. so how many people are they allowed to share or re-sell it to before it becomes a crime?
i can speak from personal experience given everyone i've ever known... of the downloading they do... 90-95% of that downloaded music would NEVER have been purchased anyway. however, by downloading, that band and the record company have vastly increased the odds of my friends (and these are the ones who wont buy an album they already downloaded if they like, whereas i will) seeing the band live, grabbing another cd or ep next time they're in the shop, etc etc.
Yes, of course someone bought that cd...
AND BY MAKING UN-LICENSED COPIES OF THAT CD, THEY'VE COMMITTED A CRIME.
If you share one copy of a cd that you bought online, then it's not a crime. But nobody does that. No one puts up a cd for download, and confirms that the first person who downloaded that copy deletes it before they share it again. "File sharing" allows many people to download the same cd at the same time, which creates un-licensed copies by default.
But your policy of downloading and then deleting after a week seems fair to me. No one should be forced to purchase a product they're not familiar with, and if everyone used downloading as you did, I'm sure record companies would take very little issue with it.
sorry, but i find this to be a complete load of garbage. somehow you are able to rack up 25k+ posts on this message board but somehow are unable to read any of the thousands upon thousands of music websites or blogs (ie - pitchfork, tiny mix tapes, prefix, cokemachineglow, etc). you could simply go to one of the chain book stores and read basic magazines like rolling stone or spin or more 'indie' ones like magnet, et al to find about new bands. also, i find it very hard to believe you can't do a simple google or yahoo search when someone (or a lot of people) rave about a new artist or band? what about the X number of online radio stations such as last.fm, vodka radio or radio indie pop (to name a few)?
and correct me if i am wrong, but aren't you in a band? your comment about not having a myspace page was odd because i don't personally have an account but i know i can go to the page of a number of bands that do and they usually have 3-4 songs streaming.
the "popular" artists all fit under three or four cliche sounds because the mass majority of the cd buying public buys what record labels feed them. it is that plain and simple. one band sells so labels go out and try to find X number of other bands that sound like that band. did you miss that part of the 90s when all the 2nd and 3rd wave "grunge" bands came out?
i don't buy the argument that rock music is the end all savior of the music industry. sure, it might be what you like, but a lot of people like rap or country or gospel or classical, etc. this isn't the 50s/60s when someone like elvis or chuck berry or the beatles would come along and, for lack of a better term, change the landscape of music. the way the us and the world is now there is just too much out there competing for each individual's dollar. you also have to take into effect that the cd buying public of 20 years ago is now 20 years older, so they might not buy as many albums. say your parents bought a ton of albums in the 80s when they were 30 and now they're 50 - maybe they don't buy as many (or any) albums. i know my mom bought tons of records and cassettes, but now she buys very few cds.
again, how is it un-licensed? i thought you could rip and burn a copy for a friend? or is that illegal too? if your friend makes a copy (if that's what you're getting at by saying you can't control what people who download your upload do) then have you committed a crime by burning it for a friend just becos you didn't foresee what he did with it?
how is burning a copy for a friend different from uploading to friends? you have a licensed copy which you have shared with others. you cannot control what your friend does with it any more than you can control what people downloading do with it. the only difference seems to be the number of people you're offering copies to.
well, i wasnt trying to validate his statistic. just saying it jives well with my experience. i dont know how you'd track that.
but yes, i feel my system is fair. if i had any other way to check music out, i'd do it.
im not in a band. if i went by what rolling stone told me to listen to, or those righteous pricks at pitchfork, id have had to burn all my cd's long ago. im sorry, but my ears write me a better music review than anything in a magazine. i get a lot of my new music tips from this forum right here though, and i do read online reviews. but i still download to check things out before going to buy. streaming songs off myspace is a pain in the ass... i dont listen to music on my computer and can't carry my laptop around all the time. i can load it to my ipod and listen to it for real on the train. if i dig, i buy. either way, it doesn't stay on my computer or my ipod. in fact, i dont have a single song in my itunes library or my ipod that is a download right now. online radio stations are an ok alternative, but im still stuck with the live streaming which doesn't work for me. i've got a feeling these bands would prefer me listening to them this way than not at all.
Acxtually, wihtouth any relevence to this general argument, I have this board open at wotk all the time cos I get really, bored, but I very rarely look at any music sites on-line to access new music. For some of us analogue dinosaurs, text is about as complicated as it gets.
i just used rolling stone as an example for a basic search on new music as you said you have no access to new music. i rarely read it anymore, but from time to time they did cover some decent stuff.
and i really don't get all the pitchfork hate. i've been a user of their site for years now and while they are awful preachy and pretentious (and sometimes formulaic in their reviews to the point where i can guess a rough score before opening the review), they have helped me find tons of new bands. if something gets an 8 or higher or gets into their best new music section, it is pretty much worth checking out (in my opinion).
oh, i would recommend insound.com for tons of free mp3s. they're also a great place to order cds from, but that's only if you want to buy new ones.