Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Downloading Music


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Eggy

Eggy
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this user.

  • 1783 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:31 PM

DO NOT DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF DOWNLOADING MUSIC. ONLY THE ETHICS BEHIND IT

Recently, there has been a crackdown on downloading of music on the internet. I support the people who are doing the downloading, not the effin greedy millionares, I do so for 2 reasons:

1. Someone bought that music originally, and whats wrong with just sharing that music with other people?

2. Music is ART. And art should not have a price. You wouldnt crack down on someone trying to find a picture of the mona lisa on the web would you?

Edited by Eggy, 31 December 2005 - 11:31 PM.


#2 Noitidart

Noitidart
  • Neocodex Co-Founder

  • 23214 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:35 PM

Wow point 2 hit me like a load of bricks, that is a crazy good idea. Based on that I would say I have no problem with it but I guess the artists might lose some money, I don't they they lose much independently but when they combine everyones it comes out to be a big number. I was never agaisnt this but have always been scared to do it :(

#3 Mitch

Mitch
  • 1237 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:38 PM

RIAA just sucks I would counter-sue.

1.) For evading privacy.
2.) I would use your 2nd point.

#4 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:52 PM

DO NOT DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF DOWNLOADING MUSIC. ONLY THE ETHICS BEHIND IT

Recently, there has been a crackdown on downloading of music on the internet. I support the people who are doing the downloading, not the effin greedy millionares, I do so for 2 reasons:

1. Someone bought that music originally, and whats wrong with just sharing that music with other people?

2. Music is ART. And art should not have a price. You wouldnt crack down on someone trying to find a picture of the mona lisa on the web would you?

A few points...

1) Yes, music is art, but it takes money to produce that art (the same as it takes money to buy paint and canvas to make a Mona Lisa). The money you pay to buy an album goes to support both the actual artist and the company that helped to make that album.

2) The Mona Lisa makes thousands if not millions of dollars a year in revenue for the Lourve museum in Paris. The pictures you find on the internet are private property, not the same property that makes the Lourve money. Its not the same with music. The music downloaded off the internet is the exact same music that was on the album created by an artist. Even if its not the same song, and is a re-recording, almost every artist holds the rights to their lyrics and the tabs to their songs, and it is therefore a violation of copyright law to use them without permission. [sidenote: a copyright is easily obtainable, even to amateur artists. Just print a copy of your lyrics (or music sheets) and mail them to yourself. The US postal service time stamp is proof of ownership from any date (the date at which it was processed) and is therefore a viable copyright.] Thus, when downloading music, you are stealing.

HOWEVER: US copyright law stipulates that it is acceptable to gift ownership of music to 'friends'. This is why programs like Grouper and, to an extent, Gnutella (the base form of Limewire, BearShare, Kazaa and others) can operate. Many, many times over, this stipulation has been sited as a loophole for companies to slip through.

3) Even after all of this, I still support downloading under the right circumstances. To be the right circumstances, I believe it is necessary to posess two things:
  • A friendship with the person who owns the file, and
  • the file in question must be from a prominent artist (e.g. one who will not be harmed from the loss of revenue that you are causing)
If you have these two things, I would support you in downloading. Otherwise, you cross some lines I don't like to get into.

#5 Will

Will
  • 2229 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 01:00 AM

I'm too tired to come up with a real argument right now so...
stick it to the man and beat the system
CENSORED the RIAA!

#6 Silk

Silk
  • 6906 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 January 2006 - 05:51 AM

I support it in most cases
If would never download Linkin Park music as they donate alot to charity and I think they deserve for their CDs to be bought.
I download single tracks as I think it is a complete rip-off to buy the single and usually these will be made by "one hit wonders" which are artists simply making a song/album to get rich then quitting the music industry
So a guideline for me to buy songs-
1. Artist must be true to the industry and must have been around for a while
2. Artist has done donated/raised money for charity
3. Artis has to be good - derr!

#7 GeoTube

GeoTube
  • 82 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 07:05 AM

I still say RvBIAA covers all the points of the RIAA.

Personally I think downloading music shouldn't be illegal, well, it should be less illegal, as Eggy's 2nd point makes sense. Also note the part in RvBIAA where Sarge pulls out the first graph, it shows whatthe RIAA have been doing and what they will end up doing.

- Geo

#8 Freddy

Freddy
  • 5500 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 January 2006 - 11:23 AM

A few points...

1) Yes, music is art, but it takes money to produce that art (the same as it takes money to buy paint and canvas to make a Mona Lisa). The money you pay to buy an album goes to support both the actual artist and the company that helped to make that album.

2) The Mona Lisa makes thousands if not millions of dollars a year in revenue for the Lourve museum in Paris. The pictures you find on the internet are private property, not the same property that makes the Lourve money. Its not the same with music. The music downloaded off the internet is the exact same music that was on the album created by an artist. Even if its not the same song, and is a re-recording, almost every artist holds the rights to their lyrics and the tabs to their songs, and it is therefore a violation of copyright law to use them without permission. [sidenote: a copyright is easily obtainable, even to amateur artists. Just print a copy of your lyrics (or music sheets) and mail them to yourself. The US postal service time stamp is proof of ownership from any date (the date at which it was processed) and is therefore a viable copyright.] Thus, when downloading music, you are stealing.

HOWEVER: US copyright law stipulates that it is acceptable to gift ownership of music to 'friends'. This is why programs like Grouper and, to an extent, Gnutella (the base form of Limewire, BearShare, Kazaa and others) can operate. Many, many times over, this stipulation has been sited as a loophole for companies to slip through.

3) Even after all of this, I still support downloading under the right circumstances. To be the right circumstances, I believe it is necessary to posess two things:

  • A friendship with the person who owns the file, and

  • the file in question must be from a prominent artist (e.g. one who will not be harmed from the loss of revenue that you are causing)
If you have these two things, I would support you in downloading. Otherwise, you cross some lines I don't like to get into.



I like how u said under the right circumstances. Especially the one abbout the revenue, I mean, we should have a limit on the programs we use to get the songs from. (winMX, bearshare, limewire, lymewire, etc.) All illegal. I say we make it legal if we have a limit on our computer/the program. Only crackdown people who sell the CDs ;)

Edited by •fred•, 07 January 2006 - 06:22 AM.


#9 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 January 2006 - 01:20 PM

Firstly,

Metalica got richer from making some of their songs free for one of their albums. That was why it got sold, was because people knew. Their real beef with napster is they needed money to pay for the shit caused by their last 2 albums that sucked.

Secondly,

Not a big deal huh? Well look at britney spears. notice her private jet? its only an s195, rather then an s200. why? Because fools like you download her music. s195s dont even have remotes for the bathrooms for the surrond sound system.

Look at lars olric. He has a golden double 9 carrot swimming pool. He would have a golden double 12 carrot swimming pool if you didnt download his music. All he wanted was the additional diamond sharks and metalic radiator with it.

Look at p. diddys son. He was going to get a 400 sq m island for christmas. If you didnt download his music, he would of. But because YOU download music, its only gonna be 200 sq m.

If we continue downloading music, stars will only live a life of semi super luxury :(

- South park ®

Edited by Athean, 01 January 2006 - 01:21 PM.


#10 Eggy

Eggy
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this user.

  • 1783 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 January 2006 - 08:44 PM

I saw that episone of soutpark yesterday :p

#11 hey

hey
  • 132 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 09:16 PM

I support free downloads. It prevents bands like Linkin Park from getting filthy rich. ;)

#12 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 January 2006 - 10:30 PM

I support free downloads. It prevents bands like Linkin Park from getting filthy rich. ;)

And whats wrong with that? They worked hard for that money.

#13 ShadowLink64

ShadowLink64
  • 16735 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 January 2006 - 12:21 AM

My government outlines that downloading music is legal, so I will keep doing so until it is unlawful in my country (but I will probably persist). :p Simple as that.

I agree that downloading music does take revenue away from the band or whoever, but I think they should just go after the uploaders instead of the downloaders as well..... it makes sense to sue the ones providing the files, not the ones downloading it because it is available.

Also, on this one chart I saw, revenue for music sales isn't going down as rapidly as everyone thinks. If not, it's climbing. So I think downloading music doesn't make a huge impact, but only a small one.

Edited by ShadowLink64, 02 January 2006 - 12:23 AM.


#14 Bão

Bão
  • 5407 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 January 2006 - 09:37 AM

I believe in downloading music from artists or bands that have a pretty status in the music industry. Downloading music from groups that are writing songs for a living but aren't wellknown is hurting them.

Look at p. diddys son. He was going to get a 400 sq m island for christmas. If you didnt download his music, he would of. But because YOU download music, its only gonna be 200 sq m.

If we continue downloading music, stars will only live a life of semi super luxury :(

- South park ®

Hahaha, I saw that south park episode.

I support free downloads. It prevents bands like Linkin Park from getting filthy rich. ;)

What's wrong with that? Linkin Park opens many charities for children without instruments, AIDs patients, Japanese history, donate to hospitals, played for Live 8 and helped many of the tsunami victims. They aren't as greedy as you think they are.

#15 Sakura

Sakura
  • 2180 posts

Posted 02 January 2006 - 10:40 AM

Artists make so much money from royalties being paid for the radioplay, the cd sales that do happen, and touring. Downloading also serves as free advertisment for all artists, large and small.
A lot of people use downloading just to see if they like something. Rather than pay 18 dollars for a CD I may or may not like, I would rather download it and check it out. If I enjoy a band, I will purchase their cd's or items to be sure that they get money.

#16 Freddy

Freddy
  • 5500 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2006 - 06:24 AM

they may have worked hard for millions but not tens and hundreds of millions. some of them atleast.

#17 Christopher Robin

Christopher Robin
  • 5302 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2006 - 08:04 AM

<_< ok, I wouldnt go out and buy the 50 - 100 cds for the songs I have downloaded, becuase only 2-3 of the songs on a CD are worth anything, I suport it, im in canada, and its LEGAL! w00t.

#18 Sakura

Sakura
  • 2180 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 09:01 AM

Oh I wish I could remember who but I know that one band got famous and made lots of money because their album was illegaly distributed on the internet before it's release. They were unknown band so they didn't have high hopes for sales, just from people who'd seen them before etc. Anyway, it got around that they were good and so loads of people downloaded their tracks. When the album was finally released, loads of people bought it and they sold thousands more copies than they ever expected to. So there's a case of downloading actually benefiting a band that weren't prominent.
Grawr, don't remember who it was. I'm going to have to go hunt through old NMEs now...




Well, he was already famous because of the song "Flagpole Sitta", but Harvey Dangers newest cd is free to everyone through his website.
http://harveydanger.com/downloads/

We embark on this experiment with both enthusiasm and curiosity—and, ok, maybe a twinge of anxiety. Why are we doing this? The short answer is simply that we want a lot of people to hear the record.

However, it’s important that people understand the free download concept isn’t a frivolous act. It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience – and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.


Edited by Sakura, 07 January 2006 - 09:03 AM.


#19 Icey Defeat

Icey Defeat
  • 8298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 January 2006 - 09:06 AM

My favorite band, Hawthorne Heights, has their entire CD that comes out in Ferurary sold in black market stores, and easily downloaded.

They said they put it on the net to see how fast it would spread. I in 2 days they said an unnamed program had the cd being seeded by 800 people.

#20 Tim

Tim
  • 2795 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 09:07 AM

I think the people that upload it should be the ones to blame, not the people who download it. If the uploaders didn't upload the music, we wouldn't be able to get any of it ;) ( I guess at least 1 other person has posted that... )

I like Eggys second point :)

Edited by Shorty, 07 January 2006 - 09:08 AM.


#21 Warlord

Warlord
  • 3988 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 04:45 PM

if you cant afford to buy the cd you should be able to download it, at least until you can afford to buy the overpriced cd

internet downloading also allows you to track down music you probably wouldn't be able to find in the store otherwise

I think the people that upload it should be the ones to blame, not the people who download it. If the uploaders didn't upload the music, we wouldn't be able to get any of it ;) ( I guess at least 1 other person has posted that... )

I like Eggys second point :)



to that effect you could blame the manufacturers of mp3 players and cheap cd burners making music copying/playing so easily accessible

#22 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 January 2006 - 01:26 PM

Oh I wish I could remember who but I know that one band got famous and made lots of money because their album was illegaly distributed on the internet before it's release. They were unknown band so they didn't have high hopes for sales, just from people who'd seen them before etc. Anyway, it got around that they were good and so loads of people downloaded their tracks. When the album was finally released, loads of people bought it and they sold thousands more copies than they ever expected to. So there's a case of downloading actually benefiting a band that weren't prominent.
Grawr, don't remember who it was. I'm going to have to go hunt through old NMEs now...


Well System of a down at least had the same story. They got fairly successful from Toxicity and were making toxicity II which got leaked all over the internet. It was then released the next year as "Steal This Album!", which promoted sales for Toxicity.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users