mp3 download
- Thread starter johnnyzou
- Start date
Well, that of course depends on what and where... for example: all the mp3's you can download from this site are 100% "legal", but if you download "pirated" mp3's of full albums from p2p file sharing services etc., then it's obviously illegal!
Basically, I'm against it. But I'm no saint, I'm not gong to claim I have never ever downloaded something that was not legal.
The real problem, as I see it, occurs when people stop buying CD's altogether (or only buy very few) and solely rely on downloading/stealing music from the internet. That is really damaging, mostly to the record companys but ALSO to the artists in the long run! But if people have a large CD collection and buys CD's regularly and occationally steal (!) some music from the net, it doesn't really upset me... however, it is illegal. No doubt about it.
Thus this whole debate brings many interesting questions with it. When is a crime "serious" and how do you weight it? I think many people consider pirating (sounds better than stealing, right?) music on the same level as a little "moonlighting" (avoiding taxes). But the day the majority stops paying taxes the society will collapse, and the day people stops buying CD's the music industry will collapse. I have no love for the slimey music "industry" - no love at all - but my concern is if the fall of that industry will take good musicians with it... (the top20 pop will always survive, at least it's regularely sceduled 6 months life cycle)
hmmm....dilemmas. Dillemmas because music pirating is here to stay, at least as long as the internet remains uncontrolled and uncencored.
Basically, I'm against it. But I'm no saint, I'm not gong to claim I have never ever downloaded something that was not legal.
The real problem, as I see it, occurs when people stop buying CD's altogether (or only buy very few) and solely rely on downloading/stealing music from the internet. That is really damaging, mostly to the record companys but ALSO to the artists in the long run! But if people have a large CD collection and buys CD's regularly and occationally steal (!) some music from the net, it doesn't really upset me... however, it is illegal. No doubt about it.
Thus this whole debate brings many interesting questions with it. When is a crime "serious" and how do you weight it? I think many people consider pirating (sounds better than stealing, right?) music on the same level as a little "moonlighting" (avoiding taxes). But the day the majority stops paying taxes the society will collapse, and the day people stops buying CD's the music industry will collapse. I have no love for the slimey music "industry" - no love at all - but my concern is if the fall of that industry will take good musicians with it... (the top20 pop will always survive, at least it's regularely sceduled 6 months life cycle)
hmmm....dilemmas. Dillemmas because music pirating is here to stay, at least as long as the internet remains uncontrolled and uncencored.
Jamie
Banned
As frederik & corno have said.legal is legal & illegal is stealing.would rather buy the cd and own it,honestly,than risk the many other things that go with illegal mp3 downloads,especially p2p.(you may get what you want-'a virus etc and certainly not the quality'.if someone 'offers' a legal download that is ok as a sample of their work.then you buy the complete cd.
I'm not sure that I understand your question? what do you mean by "what if it is legislated"?
The only problem? - the PROBLEM is that it's stealing, to download music that you don't pay for. - it's as simple as that!!! - how else would you view it?
What do you mean by "Everyone wants to be economic..."? - what does that mean?
If you've created something and you plan to earn money and live by doing so, what would you say if everyone just took for granted that it would be ok to take that which you've made without paying you? - how would you feel about that? - I myself, wouldn't feel that good... wouldn't earn anything for which to pay for my ways and means... why is it a problem to get paid for doing/making something?
I simply don't understand your reasoning... please try to explain it more... and maybe in a little more clear English.
The only problem? - the PROBLEM is that it's stealing, to download music that you don't pay for. - it's as simple as that!!! - how else would you view it?
What do you mean by "Everyone wants to be economic..."? - what does that mean?
If you've created something and you plan to earn money and live by doing so, what would you say if everyone just took for granted that it would be ok to take that which you've made without paying you? - how would you feel about that? - I myself, wouldn't feel that good... wouldn't earn anything for which to pay for my ways and means... why is it a problem to get paid for doing/making something?
I simply don't understand your reasoning... please try to explain it more... and maybe in a little more clear English.
Priest
Commodore of Impending Doom II
Yeah... and it is such a shame for all the filthy rich music producers, record labels who fucks people over for every penny possible... and don't forget the lawyers, managers... hehe...
They will cry all the way down to the bank knowing that there are people who uses the internet to take away their income, making them cut down on their use of cocaine, whores and whatever...
I am excaggerating a little here. I don't mind "stealing" mp3's when it comes from major labels like Sony, Virgin or whatever. But it is in my interest to support smaller groups progressive labels, who do their stuff based upon interest, and not to suck people dry while they are milking their musician like cows in an industrialised barn...
think of robin hood..
They will cry all the way down to the bank knowing that there are people who uses the internet to take away their income, making them cut down on their use of cocaine, whores and whatever...
I am excaggerating a little here. I don't mind "stealing" mp3's when it comes from major labels like Sony, Virgin or whatever. But it is in my interest to support smaller groups progressive labels, who do their stuff based upon interest, and not to suck people dry while they are milking their musician like cows in an industrialised barn...
think of robin hood..
how does stealing the music from companies such as Sony, Virgin ect. help the small groups?
no matter how you look at it, stealing is stealing is stealing... - the only robin hood act being performed is you enriching yourself - not others...
no matter how you look at it, stealing is stealing is stealing... - the only robin hood act being performed is you enriching yourself - not others...
Priest
Commodore of Impending Doom II
No.. you got me wrong. I don't postulate that "stealing" of mp3's if it's from one of the major labels, helps the smaller labels.
I just say that I don't really care about "stealing" mp3's if it's from one of the huge-ass companies... and who says I can't be like Robin Hood. I can share the stuff I steal with all of my friends, and all the other lovely people on the internet.
Therefore... not only enriching myself.
I just say that I don't really care about "stealing" mp3's if it's from one of the huge-ass companies... and who says I can't be like Robin Hood. I can share the stuff I steal with all of my friends, and all the other lovely people on the internet.
Therefore... not only enriching myself.
hmm... - why do you set "stealing" in quotationmarks? - it IS stealing - no matter how you justify it or what excusses you give, it's still stealing - taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it (if it's for sale)... why is that seemingly so hard to acknowledge?
at the moment I'm not preaching anything in particular here, I'm just simply trying to understand the need to distance yourself from the act - the act of stealing? and why that makes it ok... if it's not stealing, then what is it?
at the moment I'm not preaching anything in particular here, I'm just simply trying to understand the need to distance yourself from the act - the act of stealing? and why that makes it ok... if it's not stealing, then what is it?
Cat
New member
I think that downloads are going to be the main music format over the next few years - it will be increasingly easier & more convenient to download, & to play downloads in all kinds of situations.
In which case, independent artists are going to have to find a way of earning a living from their downloads, or else rely solely on earnings from gigs & merchandise to get by.
In reality, as any independent artist can affirm, it's incredibly difficult to make any decent money out of gigging. Also there are huge numbers of great music artists who for various reasons are completely unable to tour. Surely the chance to earn money from selling their recordings is vital for these artists.
So, it would seem to me that it's crucial for the future of independent music that music-lovers support the artists by buying downloads. Also, that they are willing to do this at a reasonable price, instead of always pushing for music to be cheaper.
It might be possible for vast multi-international corporations to produce music very cheaply, but for relatively unknown artists creating their own music requires considerable investment of time & money.
I understand people's anger & disillusionment with the corporate music establishment, but I hope the independent music scene can be regarded separately, & supported accordingly, through buying downloads.
In which case, independent artists are going to have to find a way of earning a living from their downloads, or else rely solely on earnings from gigs & merchandise to get by.
In reality, as any independent artist can affirm, it's incredibly difficult to make any decent money out of gigging. Also there are huge numbers of great music artists who for various reasons are completely unable to tour. Surely the chance to earn money from selling their recordings is vital for these artists.
So, it would seem to me that it's crucial for the future of independent music that music-lovers support the artists by buying downloads. Also, that they are willing to do this at a reasonable price, instead of always pushing for music to be cheaper.
It might be possible for vast multi-international corporations to produce music very cheaply, but for relatively unknown artists creating their own music requires considerable investment of time & money.
I understand people's anger & disillusionment with the corporate music establishment, but I hope the independent music scene can be regarded separately, & supported accordingly, through buying downloads.
Mizar
New member
I only listen to classical and the Hearts Of Space Amient Music Program. Classical music is cheap to buy. I can go to my local record store and buy a box collection of 100 full songs for only about 7$. Unlike listening to something like pop or rap sound quality is what matters in classical so you can hear everything and enjoy it. For me its worth the 7 $ for 100 songs and better quality than I would download. As for Hearts of Space, you can listen to any of their thousands of programs online at their website absloutly free.
but then again how many times have you heard record companies complain about low classical sales? haha
but then again how many times have you heard record companies complain about low classical sales? haha
winkin
New member
I'm always amazed when people say that it's okay to "steal" from the big record companies. Doesn't that same logic allow you to steal a car from BMW because it's such a big, successful company? How about stealing a house from Elton John? I mean, what does he need with all those houses? Oh, I see: you can't download a car or a house. In other words, you don't steal those things because it's inconvenient to do so.
Bits (songs, movies, games, etc.) can be transported over the Internet. Chocolate can't (darn!). Everything that can be sold as bits will eventually be sold through the Internet. Everything that can be sold as atoms will have to get to us the old-fashioned way, though it can be ordered on the Internet.
My point? The Internet is a delivery mechanism for stuff that other people create that you want to consume. If the creator of the product offered it, or a sample, for free, then that's their prerogative. If not, and you take it anyway, it's stealing. Do you steal ice cream from the ice cream parlor when their backs are turned, because you think you can get away with it? Do you tell everyone about it when you're done? My, aren't you clever!
Yes, some people make more money than others. Welcome to the real world. There are producers, basketball players, movie stars and others who make obscene amounts of money. They are the exception, the 99.9th percentile, not the rule.
A mid-level artist at Sony still gets an advance that must be repaid. If their advance is $250,000 (of which most goes to recording and 1/2 of the first video, and that's more than most artists get currently), and they make $1 per album sold, then they must sell 250,000 units to make even a single dollar. If they don't, they get dropped. Last year, 30,000 albums were released. 25,000 of them sold less than 1000 copies. Less than 500 sold 500,000. Fewer than 150 sold over 1 million. Even with all the marketing money spent on them by the "big" record companies. That's simply Lazes Faire economics at work.
Why do the artists only get $1? What a ripoff to artists, you say! But there are tremendous expenses, and hands out at each point in the creation, marketing and distribution of a record. Without those hands, though, a record goes unnoticed. With them, an artist gets noticed, and can tour, find their audience and build a following that will be with them wherever they make their next record.
So, for each act that was given a recording advance that wasn't earned back, that's a loss on the books for the big record companies. What if you had to earn your living knowing that, despite the time and effort you put in, you may or may not get paid? Would you do it? Yet these companies, big and small, are taking a risk that they may have the next Yellowcard (I saw them last night in Hollywood - boy, have they worked hard to get where they are!).
Some bands work in obscurity for years before making enough money to pay the electric bill. If you average out the money they'll make when they're at the top with the money they didn't make on the way up and on the way back down, they'd probably be better off working at a bank.
It takes enormous time, effort, and money to get noticed, even if you have a major recording company behind you. Look at the latest REM album. Despite a multi-million dollar ad campaign, it's already tanked, perhaps because the audience they're marketing to were in diapers when "losing my religion" first came out.
This isn't even about the law, though. It's about your own sense of ethics and morality. Stealing is stealing. Stealing with an "excuse" is still stealing. Not getting caught is still stealing. "Sticking it to the big guys" is still stealing.
So, the next time you think it's okay to steal, let's put a face on the victim: your mother. Is it okay to steal money from her because she has more than you have? Now go tell everyone on the Internet that you were stealing from your mom, but it's okay because she has lots of money. But aren't you a clever boy that you got away with it! Your name must be Peter Pan, because you never grew up!
Claire Moss
Claire Moss
Bits (songs, movies, games, etc.) can be transported over the Internet. Chocolate can't (darn!). Everything that can be sold as bits will eventually be sold through the Internet. Everything that can be sold as atoms will have to get to us the old-fashioned way, though it can be ordered on the Internet.
My point? The Internet is a delivery mechanism for stuff that other people create that you want to consume. If the creator of the product offered it, or a sample, for free, then that's their prerogative. If not, and you take it anyway, it's stealing. Do you steal ice cream from the ice cream parlor when their backs are turned, because you think you can get away with it? Do you tell everyone about it when you're done? My, aren't you clever!
Yes, some people make more money than others. Welcome to the real world. There are producers, basketball players, movie stars and others who make obscene amounts of money. They are the exception, the 99.9th percentile, not the rule.
A mid-level artist at Sony still gets an advance that must be repaid. If their advance is $250,000 (of which most goes to recording and 1/2 of the first video, and that's more than most artists get currently), and they make $1 per album sold, then they must sell 250,000 units to make even a single dollar. If they don't, they get dropped. Last year, 30,000 albums were released. 25,000 of them sold less than 1000 copies. Less than 500 sold 500,000. Fewer than 150 sold over 1 million. Even with all the marketing money spent on them by the "big" record companies. That's simply Lazes Faire economics at work.
Why do the artists only get $1? What a ripoff to artists, you say! But there are tremendous expenses, and hands out at each point in the creation, marketing and distribution of a record. Without those hands, though, a record goes unnoticed. With them, an artist gets noticed, and can tour, find their audience and build a following that will be with them wherever they make their next record.
So, for each act that was given a recording advance that wasn't earned back, that's a loss on the books for the big record companies. What if you had to earn your living knowing that, despite the time and effort you put in, you may or may not get paid? Would you do it? Yet these companies, big and small, are taking a risk that they may have the next Yellowcard (I saw them last night in Hollywood - boy, have they worked hard to get where they are!).
Some bands work in obscurity for years before making enough money to pay the electric bill. If you average out the money they'll make when they're at the top with the money they didn't make on the way up and on the way back down, they'd probably be better off working at a bank.
It takes enormous time, effort, and money to get noticed, even if you have a major recording company behind you. Look at the latest REM album. Despite a multi-million dollar ad campaign, it's already tanked, perhaps because the audience they're marketing to were in diapers when "losing my religion" first came out.
This isn't even about the law, though. It's about your own sense of ethics and morality. Stealing is stealing. Stealing with an "excuse" is still stealing. Not getting caught is still stealing. "Sticking it to the big guys" is still stealing.
So, the next time you think it's okay to steal, let's put a face on the victim: your mother. Is it okay to steal money from her because she has more than you have? Now go tell everyone on the Internet that you were stealing from your mom, but it's okay because she has lots of money. But aren't you a clever boy that you got away with it! Your name must be Peter Pan, because you never grew up!
Claire Moss
Claire Moss
thisismethen
New member
I think its good for the small bands, it help them get "known"