"Stealing" Music

llamaranger

Not really sure this is the right place for this, and its probably been discussed before, but I had a bit of a dilemma recently (in my search for ancient soundgarden bootlegs), where i had part with my moral code for a while in order to get hold of them.

Basically, I'm pretty much totally against (in the majority of cases) acquiring music without paying for it. I had a pretty massive argument with a friend of mine about this. She nonchalantly said that music is overpriced and I completely lost it and started ranting on about how people like her have no concept of the time and effort song-writing takes and cannot truly judge its worth.

I also accused her (and people like her) of causing major damage to the music industry, as I'm sure you know, the prevalence of illegal music downloads means labels (major and minor) make less money and are subsequently becoming less and less willing to back new acts.

Personally I feel this to be the cause of the desolate, stagnant and unimaginative music that dominates the majority of today's markets.

So thats basically how I feel on the matter (and I'm feeling a little bit of self-loathing for indulging my SG addiction in this way), what do you guys think about this?

Edd

P.S. On the upside, if you take a look back in the history books, we're about due another future shaping musical revolution. (50' rock and roll, 70's punk, 90's grunge, 2010's who knows?) (I know there are others, but those illustrate the point best and are the most important to me...)

know1

I'm someone who doesn't download music pretty much ever, but I'm also someone who doesn't think it should be illegal to download it or play it whenever you want.

I can see the point of why it could be said to be illegal, but technology is evolving so fast, that pretty soon you won't even have to ever download it. You can just stream it - from sites, from your friends, from wherever.

That's not much different conceptually than playing the radio in your buddy's car.

Collin

I rarely ever download music, though, I have quite a nice collection of music I didn't pay for (got it from friends). I still buy cd's regularly.

But I think it's something you can't stop. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak.

But if artists can't make money buy selling discs, they might tour more, play live more... which is kind of nice.

Anyway, I don't really care.

godpt3

I download TONS of music... well, at least I used to. Hasn't been much of interest to me recently. And it's not because I'm necessarily cheap, either. I've got shelves and shelves of CDs and LPs at home. I pirate music because that's the only way I'll hear anything at all. At lunch today, I went out looking for the Clash's Live at Shea Stadium album and Dylan's Tell Tale Signs set. Both are new releases this week, from well known artists. The only CD store in town didn't have either one of them. Surprisingly, I found Dylan @ Wal-Mart :( And I go through this same routine just about every week. The only CD shop in town is filled with Tejano crap and country bullshit and buying ANYTHING, let alone music, at Wal-Mart just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd order stuff from Amazon more often, but since there's a distribution center here in the state I have to pay sales tax on top of the shipping and handling.

So if the recording industry wants me to buy their overpriced stuff, they need to do a damn sight better job of getting it to me in the first place.

godpt3

llamaranger wrote:

I also accused her (and people like her) of causing major damage to the music industry, as I'm sure you know, the prevalence of illegal music downloads means labels (major and minor) make less money and are subsequently becoming less and less willing to back new acts.

The recording industry's own statistics show that "piracy" doesn't have nearly the negative effect on sales as they would like people to believe and that downloading can, in fact, boost sales by introducing consumers to music they wouldn't have otherwise heard.

JOEJOEJOE

know1 wrote:

I'm someone who doesn't download music pretty much ever, but I'm also someone who doesn't think it should be illegal to download it or play it whenever you want.

I can see the point of why it could be said to be illegal, but technology is evolving so fast, that pretty soon you won't even have to ever download it. You can just stream it - from sites, from your friends, from wherever.

That's not much different conceptually than playing the radio in your buddy's car.

Artists get paid royalties when their songs are played on the radio, so it is conceptually different.

JOEJOEJOE

godpt3 wrote:

I download TONS of music... well, at least I used to. Hasn't been much of interest to me recently. And it's not because I'm necessarily cheap, either. I've got shelves and shelves of CDs and LPs at home. I pirate music because that's the only way I'll hear anything at all. At lunch today, I went out looking for the Clash's Live at Shea Stadium album and Dylan's Tell Tale Signs set. Both are new releases this week, from well known artists. The only CD store in town didn't have either one of them. Surprisingly, I found Dylan @ Wal-Mart :( And I go through this same routine just about every week. The only CD shop in town is filled with Tejano crap and country bullshit and buying ANYTHING, let alone music, at Wal-Mart just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd order stuff from Amazon more often, but since there's a distribution center here in the state I have to pay sales tax on top of the shipping and handling.

So if the recording industry wants me to buy their overpriced stuff, they need to do a damn sight better job of getting it to me in the first place.

Trying to avoid sales tax is not a great excuse for pirating music.

godpt3

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Trying to avoid sales tax is not a great excuse for pirating music.

It's the combination of sales taxes on top of S&H that kill it, though. I don't like paying $20 for a damn CD. There's no excuse for that other than flat-out greed on somebody's part.

I don't like paying sales taxes on items I've bought online. Period. If I've had to buy something on Amazon, it's because I couldn't find it in a store locally. Which means, either way, somebody locally has lost a sale. And that's not my problem.

llamaranger

godpt3 wrote:

The recording industry's own statistics show that "piracy" doesn't have nearly the negative effect on sales as they would like people to believe and that downloading can, in fact, boost sales by introducing consumers to music they wouldn't have otherwise heard.

Thank God for that... but why do they say it then?

godpt3 wrote:

I went out looking for the Clash's Live at Shea Stadium album and Dylan's Tell Tale Signs set. Both are new releases this week, from well known artists.

I'd see this as a "legitimate" reason, its the only situation where i've downloaded music, i.e. where there is no possibility of acquiring it in the local area.

Edd

know1

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Artists get paid royalties when their songs are played on the radio, so it is conceptually different.

OK - then it's no different than sitting out on your back deck listening to the neighbor play his/her CD or MP3 player.

Jeremy1012

I download a lot of music and I feel no guilt, for reasons I have posted here many times and so will refrain from going into but I'll say one thing, there are a shitload of bands and artists who HAVE received my money as a direct consequence of my "illegal" downloading of their music, after I went to see them live or shelled out cash for hard copies when I fell in love with their releases. Money that would never have seen if I hadn't heard their music in the first place.

nothinghead

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Trying to avoid sales tax is not a great excuse for pirating music.

Also, Amazon is not the only place online to purchase CDs from.

llamaranger wrote:

Personally I feel this to be the cause of the desolate, stagnant and unimaginative music that dominates the majority of today's markets.

Yes, shitty music dominates a good part of record label's rosters. However, this same technology you are blaming for crushing smaller, independent bands is also giving them new life on the internet. Record labels are quickly becoming obsolete and unnecessary for upcoming artists.

Now, I'm not saying this is you--shit, i don't even know you--but for the most part when people complain that times aren't changing, they aren't doing anything to change them. The next great bands are out there, but you have to actually go out and see them. You can't wait for A&R people to find them for you. These bands have websites, they travel in shitty vans, they have albums recorded independently on a shoe-string budget, they exist.

JOEJOEJOE

know1 wrote:

OK - then it's no different than sitting out on your back deck listening to the neighbor play his/her CD or MP3 player.

I agree.......its totally cool to share music like that, but if your neighbor starts burning the cd for dozens of friends, thats when the artist suffers.

godpt3

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I agree.......its totally cool to share music like that, but if your neighbor starts burning the cd for dozens of friends, thats when the artist suffers.

Honestly, how much do artists make on CD sales? Pennies on the dollar. The only people really getting rich off CD sales anymore are fat studio execs and coke dealers.

llamaranger

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I download a lot of music and I feel no guilt, for reasons I have posted here many times and so will refrain from going into but I'll say one thing, there are a shitload of bands and artists who HAVE received my money as a direct consequence of my "illegal" downloading of their music, after I went to see them live or shelled out cash for hard copies when I fell in love with their releases. Money that would never have seen if I hadn't heard their music in the first place.

Fair enough, maybe my rather "carefree" approach to music buying doesn't work for most, generally if I hear a song I like by any artist, I buy at least one of their albums, i the sometimes vain hope that if they were good enough to write one good song, the rest of the album probably isn't that bad either.

Edd

JOEJOEJOE

godpt3 wrote:

Honestly, how much do artists make on CD sales? Pennies on the dollar. The only people really getting rich off CD sales anymore are fat studio execs and coke dealers.

Its not just a matter of the record labels getting rich......the artist gets paid what are called "mechnical royalties" for every cd that is pressed, as well a for songs streamed on legal websites, so they do lose-out on much more then just a few pennies on the dollar.

Jeremy1012

llamaranger wrote:

Fair enough, maybe my rather "carefree" approach to music buying doesn't work for most, generally if I hear a song I like by any artist, I buy at least one of their albums, i the sometimes vain hope that if they were good enough to write one good song, the rest of the album probably isn't that bad either.

Edd

Trust me, I'd LOVE to have physical copies of all the music I have, I'd love to be ABLE to pay for it, it's just not a viable option at the moment. I feel compelled to seek out new music but I can't afford to buy it all physically. One day I hope to I like to think most real artists, as in those who I might feel guilty about ripping off, would actually rather I heard it than not anyway. In fairness, most of what I download is impossible to find in shops.

I do still buy CDs and vinyl, just not at the same rate as I download.

musicismylife78

the record companies not downloaders are at fault.

In 1999 when Napster became a household name, the record companies had many choices. One of which was to form almost like Comcast type thing or AOL type thing where each month we are billed a certain amount for unlimited downloads. Just like we are billed for tv and the internet. 10-20 bucks a month for unlimited downloads lets say. They could have done any number of imaginative things. Instead from the very start, they villified and criminalized those users who downloaded. Which is odd, considering they were villifying their customers and music lovers.

From 1999 on, its been a battle, us vs them. That lady was charged 220,000 bucks for downloading 22 songs! How absurd is that! They threw the case out because the judge recognized the lunacy of it all.

I think any musician that starts a career today thinking they will make money off cd sales is naive. You have to be stupid frankly to believe that. The industry changed. Either find a new profession, or accept that downloading is a part of life. No amount of fines, criminalization, jail time, or what not, will ever stop it. The genies out of the bottle. Anyone who thinks we can stop it is ignorant and an idiot.

Bands have become imaginative as well. Before, it was considered a sell out move to liscence songs for tv and movies, but now a ton of bands from iron and Wine to Death cab to Band of Horses and Modest Mouse, liscense songs for alot of products and tv and movies. And bands like NIN and Bloc Party and Radiohead have come up with interesting and imaginative ways to market and release records and still make profits.

I think its silly to demonize people who download, because lets face it, those who dont download are in the minority. Especially when talking about 12-30 year olds. i would say a majority of them download. Its a fact of life.

I dont care what anyone says. 20 bucks for a cd is too expensive. Its baloney. Its overpriced. And most of that money, even if you buy at a store is going to the record company anyways. Who wants to give sony or Reprise more money? They have shown time and time again they dont give a damn about us, and I dont give a damn about them. They value profits over quality. And it shows.

As long as you support artists by buying merch and by buying show tickets, I dont think you are doing anything wrong by stealing music.

The days of going down to the store and buying 5 cd's for 100 are over. Either mourn the loss and cry in your blanket, or get hip with the times and accept that bands make money in new and different ways.

Thats the whole ridiculous thing. People act like by copying the new tool or red hot chili's record you are stealing money from the band. Thats a lie.

The whole reason the record labels are fining and jailing folks, is because they, the labels are losing profits. Not the bands. They dont give a damn if the bands are hungry and homeless. Its the multibillionaire ceo's who are whining about not getting more profit.

So tell me again why stealing music is bad?

the sad thing is, its not the labels or artists who lose. its us. a business doesnt go after and fine and jail its most loyal patrons. the people who are being jailed and fined arent radical commie activists intent on bringing an end to record label rule. they are merely music fans. fans who until 1999 spent a ton of money buying cd's, whose profits went straight to the labels.

if labels were really all that concerned about right and wrong they would treat their customers and employees/record label roster better.

Cosmo

radiohead33 wrote:

the record companies not downloaders are at fault.

In 1999 when Napster became a household name, the record companies had many choices. One of which was to form almost like Comcast type thing or AOL type thing where each month we are billed a certain amount for unlimited downloads. Just like we are billed for tv and the internet. 10-20 bucks a month for unlimited downloads lets say. They could have done any number of imaginative things. Instead from the very start, they villified and criminalized those users who downloaded. Which is odd, considering they were villifying their customers and music lovers.

From 1999 on, its been a battle, us vs them. That lady was charged 220,000 bucks for downloading 22 songs! How absurd is that! They threw the case out because the judge recognized the lunacy of it all.

I think any musician that starts a career today thinking they will make money off cd sales is naive. You have to be stupid frankly to believe that. The industry changed. Either find a new profession, or accept that downloading is a part of life. No amount of fines, criminalization, jail time, or what not, will ever stop it. The genies out of the bottle. Anyone who thinks we can stop it is ignorant and an idiot.

Bands have become imaginative as well. Before, it was considered a sell out move to liscence songs for tv and movies, but now a ton of bands from iron and Wine to Death cab to Band of Horses and Modest Mouse, liscense songs for alot of products and tv and movies. And bands like NIN and Bloc Party and Radiohead have come up with interesting and imaginative ways to market and release records and still make profits.

I think its silly to demonize people who download, because lets face it, those who dont download are in the minority. Especially when talking about 12-30 year olds. i would say a majority of them download. Its a fact of life.

I dont care what anyone says. 20 bucks for a cd is too expensive. Its baloney. Its overpriced. And most of that money, even if you buy at a store is going to the record company anyways. Who wants to give sony or Reprise more money? They have shown time and time again they dont give a damn about us, and I dont give a damn about them. They value profits over quality. And it shows.

As long as you support artists by buying merch and by buying show tickets, I dont think you are doing anything wrong by stealing music.

The days of going down to the store and buying 5 cd's for 100 are over. Either mourn the loss and cry in your blanket, or get hip with the times and accept that bands make money in new and different ways.

Thats the whole ridiculous thing. People act like by copying the new tool or red hot chili's record you are stealing money from the band. Thats a lie.

The whole reason the record labels are fining and jailing folks, is because they, the labels are losing profits. Not the bands. They dont give a damn if the bands are hungry and homeless. Its the multibillionaire ceo's who are whining about not getting more profit.

So tell me again why stealing music is bad?

the sad thing is, its not the labels or artists who lose. its us. a business doesnt go after and fine and jail its most loyal patrons. the people who are being jailed and fined arent radical commie activists intent on bringing an end to record label rule. they are merely music fans. fans who until 1999 spent a ton of money buying cd's, whose profits went straight to the labels.

if labels were really all that concerned about right and wrong they would treat their customers and employees/record label roster better.

...
Regarding this:
Q: So tell me again why stealing music is bad?
A: Because STEALING is bad.

sponger

I don't download music, but that's because I think I'm going to end up with a virus if I do.

But, one thing I noticed is that Radiohead's In Rainbows albums still sold phenomenally in stores even though it had been made free via the band's website.

musicismylife78

care to respond to my other points?

As I stated 20 bucks a pop is alot. and bands get little if any of that cash. Record labels wouldnt care about downloading if artists took home 90 percent of that. artists take home little of it.

So how is downloading a bruce album stealing money from bruce?

Its stealing money from greedy multibillion dollar conglomerates who could give a crap about us.
Stealing is justified in some circumstances. And this is one of them.

If bands were going to take home a huge slice of that 20 bucks it would be different. as it stands they wouldnt take home much of it, if you bought a cd.

What about libraries or vcr's? You can go to a place and borrow a book and read it without paying money to the author. Isnt that stealing? And why arent you pissed off about that? How about taping tv shows on DVR or whatnot. Isnt that taking money away from potential profits that tv companies could make when future dvd's come out? More significantly most libraries have copy machines. it would take an entire day to do it, but you feasibly could copy literally any book you wanted to.

I dislike many things about modern society. Very few things piss me off more than hyposcrisy.

Either you are for or against something. Either you are against taping the simpsons and Lost on tv because that is stealing (back when VCR's came out, that was the argument, that it was stealing. Look it up. Sound familiar?), or you are for stealing and copying of everything.

There is no middle ground.

For me, i am for copying of all media. The movie studios and tv studios are the same as the record companies. They screw the actor, artist, musician and take home the profit, while throwing pennies at the writers, directors, actors, producers, musicians etc...

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

I don't download music, but that's because I think I'm going to end up with a virus if I do.

But, one thing I noticed is that Radiohead's In Rainbows albums still sold phenomenally in stores even though it had been made free via the band's website.

...
That's the difference... radiohead was in control... not some random dude on a college campus. The music was offered to the public... and told, 'Pay... what you think it is worth'. If you thought the music was worthless.. you paid zero... 10 bucks, you paid 10 bucks.
Personally... I opted for the limited edition vinyl that came with the CD with extra songs and special packaging. It set me back 80 bucks.. but, the way I see it... if part of that 80 bucks finances their next record.. then, it was well worth it.
They are artists... If I want their art... I think I should, at least, pay them for it.

sponger

I do remember watching a documentary about how CD's are in fact way overpriced, and that the music industry intentionally overcharges like the oil companies do with gasoline.

I believe that record labels are in an industry that allows them to engage in price-fixing. That is, they conspire to keep their products at a certain price.

For whatever reason, DVD's are cheaper than ever. I never pay more than $10 for a DVD. Most of them are $6.99. Why can't record labels do the same with CD's?

keeponrockin

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's the difference... radiohead was in control... not some random dude on a college campus. The music was offered to the public... and told, 'Pay... what you think it is worth'. If you thought the music was worthless.. you paid zero... 10 bucks, you paid 10 bucks.
Personally... I opted for the limited edition vinyl that came with the CD with extra songs and special packaging. It set me back 80 bucks.. but, the way I see it... if part of that 80 bucks finances their next record.. then, it was well worth it.
They are artists... If I want their art... I think I should, at least, pay them for it.

I agree. I think that if you're a true music lover, you PAY for the art, and not steal it, end of discussion.

The excuse 'lots of people do it' is bullshit. I'm sorry, I'm 17, and I pay for ALL my music (other than live bootlegs), I feel:
A) You should support the artist
and
I like having something physical.

I would definitley consider myself a music lover, ao I pay for it. If I see a band I like at a concert, I go buy the CD. It's not like I have an unlimited budget here, but I have just never wanted to get something thats not supporting the artist, even in the least bit.

Cosmo

radiohead33 wrote:

care to respond to my other points?

As I stated 20 bucks a pop is alot. and bands get little if any of that cash. Record labels wouldnt care about downloading if artists took home 90 percent of that. artists take home little of it.

So how is downloading a bruce album stealing money from bruce?

Its stealing money from greedy multibillion dollar conglomerates who could give a crap about us.
Stealing is justified in some circumstances. And this is one of them.

If bands were going to take home a huge slice of that 20 bucks it would be different. as it stands they wouldnt take home much of it, if you bought a cd.

..
You are rationalizing your actions. You even refer to it as 'Stealing'... to which I responded... Stealing is bad. Leastwise, in my book stealing is bad.
...
And I don't know where you live... but, I can pick up a CD at Target for about 12 bucks.
And it's not just the Record Company CEO. That's like saying Boeing is just it's CEO. Not true. Both are comprised of hundreds or thousands of regular working Joes. People at post production, packaging, distribution, marketing, advertisement, etc... To believe it is just talking it from spoiled millionaire Rock Stars and CEO Billionaires is so simplistic and way off the plane of reality.
...
Regarding Bruce Springsteen. You steal his music... you steal from everyone that has anything to do with the making of that record. If you feel that is okay... that's on you. You can justify you stealing (from a greedy CEO)... which means you can justify the guy that breaks into your car and steals your stereo. It's not really stealig to him... you are rich because you have a car and he doesn't. He can sleep well at night by justifying that you will just have your insurance company pay for an upgrade to your system.
That's okay... ain't it?
To me... it isn't. To me... stealing is stealing, not matter what you tell yourself.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

I used to steal lots of music and have found new bands that way. now that i'm making a bit of cash, i'm buying up real copies of my pirated stuff. i dont really feel good about pirating it now.

working in the game industry, i can say that pirating seems to be destroying the PC market. game developers are fleeing the PC in droves, or at most releasing the game months after it comes out on consoles (which also gets pirated). the ratio is upwards of 10:1 thieves to buyers in most cases.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

I do remember watching a documentary about how CD's are in fact way overpriced, and that the music industry intentionally overcharges like the oil companies do with gasoline.

I believe that record labels are in an industry that allows them to engage in price-fixing. That is, they conspire to keep their products at a certain price.

For whatever reason, DVD's are cheaper than ever. I never pay more than $10 for a DVD. Most of them are $6.99. Why can't record labels do the same with CD's?

...
That exactly what i do. Like, I will buy the Pearl Jam CD from the Ten/VHC 'Goods' webpage, because I like Pearl Jam. I do the same for the bands I really like.
I also buy CDs from Target for about 12 bucks when they first come out.
If I hear something I like on the radio (which is rare)... I will look for it in the Used CD bins at Amoeba or Fingerprints (Long Beach). I know it doesn't count as a full cost CD that goes to record labels... but, i like the people who work at Amoeba and Fingerprints and i hope to keep them in business.
For those tiny, new artists that are just trying to make a living making music, rather than sitting in a fucking cubicle, like me... I will pay the 15 bucks they charge. I love buying their CDs at their shows and watching my 15 bucks go right into their pockets.
They are making my life better by filling it with music and songs that seem to say what i am feeling.. but, I lack the talent to string those words together so beautifully. To me... that's worth it.

NeilJam

sponger wrote:

For whatever reason, DVD's are cheaper than ever. I never pay more than $10 for a DVD. Most of them are $6.99. Why can't record labels do the same with CD's?

This is a good point. Many more people are involved in making a movie than making an album. Actors often get royalties for each sale or rental of a movie they are in. My High School would even get royalty checks from profits for the movie Reckless because of scenes that were filmed in the building. These kind of deals must still be going on.

keeponrockin

Cosmo wrote:

..
You are rationalizing your actions. You even refer to it as 'Stealing'... to which I responded... Stealing is bad. Leastwise, in my book stealing is bad.
...
And I don't know where you live... but, I can pick up a CD at Target for about 12 bucks.
And it's not just the Record Company CEO. That's like saying Boeing is just it's CEO. Not true. Both are comprised of hundreds or thousands of regular working Joes. People at post production, packaging, distribution, marketing, advertisement, etc... To believe it is just talking it from spoiled millionaire Rock Stars and CEO Billionaires is so simplistic and way off the plane of reality.
...
Regarding Bruce Springsteen. You steal his music... you steal from everyone that has anything to do with the making of that record. If you feel that is okay... that's on you. You can justify you stealing (from a greedy CEO)... which means you can justify the guy that breaks into your car and steals your stereo. It's not really stealig to him... you are rich because you have a car and he doesn't. He can sleep well at night by justifying that you will just have your insurance company pay for an upgrade to your system.
That's okay... ain't it?
To me... it isn't. To me... stealing is stealing, not matter what you tell yourself.

Once again, Cosmo hits the nail on the head.

Cosmo

MrSmith wrote:

I used to steal lots of music and have found new bands that way. now that i'm making a bit of cash, i'm buying up real copies of my pirated stuff. i dont really feel good about pirating it now.

working in the game industry, i can say that pirating seems to be destroying the PC market. game developers are fleeing the PC in droves, or at most releasing the game months after it comes out on consoles (which also gets pirated). the ratio is upwards of 10:1 thieves to buyers in most cases.

...
And people will justify stealing your games by saying they aren't stealing it... they are 'copying' it. The money just goes to those greedy CEOs at EA... right? You and your co-workers are not even considered to be part of the equation.
If they want to play the game.. they need to just fucking buy it. The money will go towards the next generation of the game, right? This rationalization of it's okay because corporations are greedy is just a means to let them believe it is okay. It is not okay.

angelica

Cosmo wrote:

..
stealing is stealing, not matter what you tell yourself.

In Canada it's not stealing. It's legal.