- Pronoun
- he/him
I don't see why downloading music strategically shouldn't actually improve the pay of musicians by holding the industry to ransom.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Downloading music: is it theft?
- Thread starter Tarvos
- Start date
surskitty
「にがいのは いやだ」って…
- Pronoun
- they
You'd have to get people to pay money for music if the artist gets a decent cut for that to work, though. It'd work well if people actually ... followed through.
For what it's worth, if I'm going to buy a CD, I get it at the concert. At least there I can be pretty sure where the markup's going.
For what it's worth, if I'm going to buy a CD, I get it at the concert. At least there I can be pretty sure where the markup's going.
Doctor Jimmy
๏̯͡๏
I'm the kind of circus freak who believes that all non-profit music sharing should be legal and free, but I still buy CDs for the security they offer. I like owning a copy of music I can call mine, and having a physical backup of my library I can duplicate and share with others is well worth it, regardless of who gets the money.
Jetx
.
Personally I am neutral on the subject, though I never download and nearly all of my music is in my CD collection.
A lot of people bring up the fact that artists don't get a whole lot of money from CD sales. However, I think that, even if they were paid a lot of money from it, most people who regularly download would carry on doing so anyway. Some people just use it as an excuse to get what they want for no cost.
A lot of people bring up the fact that artists don't get a whole lot of money from CD sales. However, I think that, even if they were paid a lot of money from it, most people who regularly download would carry on doing so anyway. Some people just use it as an excuse to get what they want for no cost.
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
Why. Just because it's encoded on a CD doesn't mean it's not theft. It's like walking into a CD store and saying "I'm taking this, but that's ok, because I won't pay for it anyway!"
departuresong
Bouncing Off Clouds
That's because paying for music right away is archaic. Music companies need to keep up with the times, but instead they choose to be stubborn and stick to old policies. Free, high-quality, and DRM-less music is available here and now, and the distribution companies need to embrace that instead of suing the pants off of anybody who does.
(Damn. Promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread...)
#1 bro
FEELING GREAT, FEELING GOOD, HOW ARE YOU?
okay just a few points:
1) piracy is not theft. to use a biological analogy, buying music is mutualism, pirating music is commensalism, and literally stealing an album from a store is parasitism. in the first scenario, it's (theoretically) a win win situation - you get the music you want, and the label gets a bit richer. in the second scenario, you get the music you want, and the label is completely unharmed. they lose nothing, because, let's be honest, you probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place. in the third scenario, you get the music you want, and the label loses profits because they had to spend money making the cd and case and it went to waste. piracy is not stealing - it is piracy, and saying otherwise is a fallacy.
2) people who say they buy music because they want to "support the artist" are being irrational. first of all, why just the artist? you don't know the artist. there's a pretty good chance he's a bit of an swaggering asshole, so why are you so keen on spending extra money just to benefit him? and it's not like everyone else involved in the production of the album is completely undeserving. i mean, i hate major labels as much as the next guy, but i feel like the producer, the manager, the guy who does the cover art for the album... they all deserve to get paid for their job too. secondly, if you're so keen on making sure your favorite drummer can afford the higher quality weed he wants, then buy the t-shirt. not sure if it's been said already, but bands' primary source of income is not record sales, not concert sales, but merchandise. nearly all the money from a t-shirt goes straight into the pockets of the artists. buying an album because you want to "support the artist" is also a fallacy, and i'm sick of hearing it.
3) in today's age, you are a fool if you buy a physical CD. it's baffling how the same people who go out to the record store and buy CD's will then go on and rail about how silly it is to buy bottled water when you can get it at the tap for free, or something similar. if you're using amazon MP3, a physical CD costs like twice as much as the download. and i mean, some of the artwork on the liner notes is nice, but it's not ten-dollars-nice. just like how the shiny case on a brand new video game is nice, but it's not twenty-dollars nice, so i'll go ahead and buy it used. anyone who does otherwise is just being irrational and fiscally irresponsible. if you have money to throw away like that, then you should probably donate it to charity or something. or just throw it off a nearby cliff - that would make about as much economic sense as buying a CD.
i pirate like all my music. not really sure if it's so ethical, but i really, really have a problem with just sort of paying for something i could easily get for free. i might as well burn a ten dollar bill, you know? there's so much shit i want to buy, and i have so little money, that it would be hard for me not to just go ahead and pirate it. and even if i did have money, i feel like the ten dollars would be much better spent feeding a starving african kid. on the other hand, i do feel a bit of guilt pirating from indie labels that i love.
wegrdfhgthres, i just don't know.
1) piracy is not theft. to use a biological analogy, buying music is mutualism, pirating music is commensalism, and literally stealing an album from a store is parasitism. in the first scenario, it's (theoretically) a win win situation - you get the music you want, and the label gets a bit richer. in the second scenario, you get the music you want, and the label is completely unharmed. they lose nothing, because, let's be honest, you probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place. in the third scenario, you get the music you want, and the label loses profits because they had to spend money making the cd and case and it went to waste. piracy is not stealing - it is piracy, and saying otherwise is a fallacy.
2) people who say they buy music because they want to "support the artist" are being irrational. first of all, why just the artist? you don't know the artist. there's a pretty good chance he's a bit of an swaggering asshole, so why are you so keen on spending extra money just to benefit him? and it's not like everyone else involved in the production of the album is completely undeserving. i mean, i hate major labels as much as the next guy, but i feel like the producer, the manager, the guy who does the cover art for the album... they all deserve to get paid for their job too. secondly, if you're so keen on making sure your favorite drummer can afford the higher quality weed he wants, then buy the t-shirt. not sure if it's been said already, but bands' primary source of income is not record sales, not concert sales, but merchandise. nearly all the money from a t-shirt goes straight into the pockets of the artists. buying an album because you want to "support the artist" is also a fallacy, and i'm sick of hearing it.
3) in today's age, you are a fool if you buy a physical CD. it's baffling how the same people who go out to the record store and buy CD's will then go on and rail about how silly it is to buy bottled water when you can get it at the tap for free, or something similar. if you're using amazon MP3, a physical CD costs like twice as much as the download. and i mean, some of the artwork on the liner notes is nice, but it's not ten-dollars-nice. just like how the shiny case on a brand new video game is nice, but it's not twenty-dollars nice, so i'll go ahead and buy it used. anyone who does otherwise is just being irrational and fiscally irresponsible. if you have money to throw away like that, then you should probably donate it to charity or something. or just throw it off a nearby cliff - that would make about as much economic sense as buying a CD.
i pirate like all my music. not really sure if it's so ethical, but i really, really have a problem with just sort of paying for something i could easily get for free. i might as well burn a ten dollar bill, you know? there's so much shit i want to buy, and i have so little money, that it would be hard for me not to just go ahead and pirate it. and even if i did have money, i feel like the ten dollars would be much better spent feeding a starving african kid. on the other hand, i do feel a bit of guilt pirating from indie labels that i love.
wegrdfhgthres, i just don't know.
Doctor Jimmy
๏̯͡๏
CDs are only a few cents to make. The rest of the cost is for intellectual property rights, which is a load of bullshit some old guys made up to make a profit.
Thanks for the complement. I'll remember that next time I throw my music collection off of a cliff, because some guy on the internet told me it was worthless.
The reason I buy CDs is the same reason I buy carts for old gaming systems: I like a physical copy that can be reused and has market value.
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
no not really being an artist is a job
labels suck, but you're hurting the artist, you're nicking the artists stuff.
it's like taking a book, copying it, and distributing it for free without permission
that is theft whichever way you put it
dude
ofc people should be paid but not to the point where the label takes 99% of profit and artist 1%
they are making more money off the music than the artists themselves that is just retarded
I like paying for a good, high-quality object with good artwork.
also buying used is fine
too bad, so sad
you wouldn't pirate a car because you couldn't afford a driving licence
if you want something you have to pay for it, period, unless the artist offers it for free
you're not entitled to having it otherwise
you're exactly what's wrong with music fans nowadays
i only download first as a try before you buy method - if i like something a lot i will buy it, invariably
Last edited:
Music Dragon
Doosic Maggon
- Pronoun
- she
I try not to post very often but this thread just went full retard.
Do recording labels over-exaggerate how much profit they lose from piracy and how much piracy actually occurs? Most likely.
Could a lot of trouble be avoided if recording labels weren't so eager to keep a chokehold on the consumer through DRM and proprietary formats? Again, probably.
Would artists be doing themselves a favor if they went to greater lengths to let people hear their music and allow them to decide if they want to give them money? In my opinion, most definitely.
But is piracy theft? Yes, you are taking something that did not belong to you without offering any sort of payment. That is theft. The crusade against piracy is undeniably overzealous, but the fact of the matter is you are stealing something. Man up and take responsibility for it.
Also if you really think your favorite Nickelback shirt that your mom picked up for you at Wal-Mart is really going to Nickelback you might just be the dumbest person to ever argue for piracy.
I'm going to pretend this isn't opinionated rambling for just a moment. First off, the water from the tap isn't free. One day when you start paying your own bills, you'll learn that. Secondly, how do you think you acquired a used copy of a video game. Someone had to buy it first, that is what the "used" means. They don't magically show up in the store without manuals and proper casing. Purchasing a CD comes with the psychological satisfaction of purchasing a physical item, the advantage of having a physical back-up that you can lend to your friends and get it back like a month later with weird sticky stuff on the back, being DRM-free so long as Sony isn't up to their old tricks again, and you didn't steal anything. The only thing I glean from your argument is that you're poor. I'm glad.
Yes it is.
Putting aside your fresh out of high school grasp on biology, your entire argument bases itself on the assumption that the label is not harmed from loss of profits and that the person stealing the music would not buy the music in the first place. These are very poor assumptions.
But the same cd and case are still produced if I download the music. They are still not being purchased because I downloaded the music.
Do recording labels over-exaggerate how much profit they lose from piracy and how much piracy actually occurs? Most likely.
Could a lot of trouble be avoided if recording labels weren't so eager to keep a chokehold on the consumer through DRM and proprietary formats? Again, probably.
Would artists be doing themselves a favor if they went to greater lengths to let people hear their music and allow them to decide if they want to give them money? In my opinion, most definitely.
But is piracy theft? Yes, you are taking something that did not belong to you without offering any sort of payment. That is theft. The crusade against piracy is undeniably overzealous, but the fact of the matter is you are stealing something. Man up and take responsibility for it.
Also if you really think your favorite Nickelback shirt that your mom picked up for you at Wal-Mart is really going to Nickelback you might just be the dumbest person to ever argue for piracy.
I'm going to pretend this isn't opinionated rambling for just a moment. First off, the water from the tap isn't free. One day when you start paying your own bills, you'll learn that. Secondly, how do you think you acquired a used copy of a video game. Someone had to buy it first, that is what the "used" means. They don't magically show up in the store without manuals and proper casing. Purchasing a CD comes with the psychological satisfaction of purchasing a physical item, the advantage of having a physical back-up that you can lend to your friends and get it back like a month later with weird sticky stuff on the back, being DRM-free so long as Sony isn't up to their old tricks again, and you didn't steal anything. The only thing I glean from your argument is that you're poor. I'm glad.
Wow. You mean after those three air-tight arguments you aren't sure if stealing something is ethical? I'm shocked!
Yes, stealing things that you otherwise can't afford is much easier. That's the whole point to stealing things. Just stop trying to justify it any other way because it makes you look like a giant tool.
So why don't you give what little money you have to the african kid if you're so saintly. Also indie labels were created for the sole purpose of marketing shit to people like you who, like, totally want to bring down the corporations, man.
I'll say.
Teh Ebil Snorlax
izombie, uzombie, weallzombie
This is the only bit of your argument that I didn't agree with it. Water is free in a lot of countries.
- Pronoun
- he/him
I must respectfully disagree, if on semantic grounds.
No, it isn't; or at least it isn't the way I think of theft. I consider theft directly taking something from some other person - if I take Person B's X, I have stolen it. I have gained an X, Person B has lost an X. That's not how piracy works. What I gain (music) is not the same as what the label (or whoever) loses (potential profit).
I don't dispute that piracy is similar to theft. Perhaps we could call it a new kind of theft. But it is not theft the way theft is traditionally defined.
And here's the key. If I pirate an album I am not taking something from the record company. I am making a duplicate of something. It's true that the thing I made a duplicate of did not belong to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean I stole it. Again, it's about balance - if I were to steal something, it would benefit me and harm the other party. If I copy something, it benefits me and leaves the other party no worse off (in simple terms; setting the issue of potential profits aside for the moment). In some respects the comparison to commensalism is not far off.
If it weren't for those potential profits, my pirating an album would not harm anyone. As it is, we cannot say that I am stealing - only that I am unlawfully copying some material. Certainly this copying might result in the record company not making as much money as it otherwise would, but not because I took something from them - but because I didn't buy something from them. Piracy is copyright infringement, certainly, but it is not theft.
eta:
In any case tap water is orders of magnitude cheaper than bottled water, so the comparison stands (on this point).
No, it isn't; or at least it isn't the way I think of theft. I consider theft directly taking something from some other person - if I take Person B's X, I have stolen it. I have gained an X, Person B has lost an X. That's not how piracy works. What I gain (music) is not the same as what the label (or whoever) loses (potential profit).
I don't dispute that piracy is similar to theft. Perhaps we could call it a new kind of theft. But it is not theft the way theft is traditionally defined.
And here's the key. If I pirate an album I am not taking something from the record company. I am making a duplicate of something. It's true that the thing I made a duplicate of did not belong to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean I stole it. Again, it's about balance - if I were to steal something, it would benefit me and harm the other party. If I copy something, it benefits me and leaves the other party no worse off (in simple terms; setting the issue of potential profits aside for the moment). In some respects the comparison to commensalism is not far off.
If it weren't for those potential profits, my pirating an album would not harm anyone. As it is, we cannot say that I am stealing - only that I am unlawfully copying some material. Certainly this copying might result in the record company not making as much money as it otherwise would, but not because I took something from them - but because I didn't buy something from them. Piracy is copyright infringement, certainly, but it is not theft.
eta:
In any case tap water is orders of magnitude cheaper than bottled water, so the comparison stands (on this point).
#1 bro
FEELING GREAT, FEELING GOOD, HOW ARE YOU?
uh, yeah, except it's still not theft, per se. i guess a lot of music that people pirate is actually lost sales, but a huge amount of it isn't. and it's not like you're depriving the stores of anything - anyone who wants to can still buy it. i'm not saying that piracy is right, it's just not theft. do you consider letting a friend borrow a CD to burn it theft?
i think it's a somewhat well-known fact that most of bands' revenue comes from merchandise. maybe not bands like nickelback, but in general.
okay, if you prefer "how silly it is to buy bottled water when you're already paying for it at the tap"
i'm not sure what the point you're trying to prove is.
if you're spending ten dollars on some sort of abstract "satisfaction" then you're being silly. it's a lot more satisfying to, i don't know, throw a tomato against a tree and that costs you like two dollars. with a little creativity you can be satisfied for free. you get the idea
hey there's a such thing as burning a cd i don't know if you've ever heard of it?
i see where you're coming from, but i don't think this is the case. it's irrelevant anyway, whatever.
i won't deny that people only pirate because they want to get stuff for free. i think that even if the music industry somehow "embraced a new model" and made buying music a lot easier, people would still pirate, just because they would rather not pay. i mean, i'm the same way. i just can't see myself ever reaching the point in life where i would voluntarily spend obscene amounts of money over something that i get for free, just because i guess okay it's the right thing to do.
- Pronoun
- he/him
No it isn't. You are not taking the rights to hear that music away from anyone else. You're just unlawfully creating your own rights to hear (or rather own) that music. There is a difference!
- Pronoun
- he/him
There is one reasonable objection to widespread piracy, and that is that there will be no new music, because there will be no money in the industry for making it. But if bands really get enough from concerts and merchandise alone, as they apparently do, there are no objections left as far as I can see. They can comfortably survive without selling their music, and why should we have to give them anything more than a comfortable income?
Last edited:
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
so?
you're not entitled to hear it is the operative word. the fact that the original owner still has his shit doesn't matter. if i steal a book, copy it, distribute it, and give the original back to the owner, it's still theft
it's not theft in the sense of burglary but it's theft because you're still taking someone else's things to do unlawful things with them.
the fact you give them back afterwards is irrelevant
you are allowed to make duplicates for your own use, but you're not allowed to just take the music to make a duplicate of it. it does mean you stole it, how else would you acquire it (if you own a legal copy ripping it to another format for personal use is legal).
and spreading it to give to others is even more unlawful