Question for downloaders

Well I'm 100% sure I don't really give much of a shit.

As for the original question though. I don't see any problem with it as he has already paid for the album.

tohostudios wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

mc666 wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

Everytime you illegally download music, God kills a kitten.

I hate cats. I should illegally download.

  

No, you should be executed.   

PM me for my addy & give it your best shot tough guy.  

I would never go for downloading. I may listen to a few samples on youtube before ordering the cd. and that's about it.

That's what I really wonder...

When it comes to the "legality" of downloading, I get what some people are saying, but laws aren't "moral." Being clear about that, let me direct you to some required reading:

http://www.jagshouse.com/music/billnelson.html

So, for the tl;dr crowd, this was written by Bill Nelson on the subject of how EMI NEVER PAID HIM for his work, to the extent that the only way he'd see any money from them for the most lucrative portion of his musical career is a long, drawn out legal battle. Where is the law here?

This may be making it too personal, but if I download someone's work to check it out before buying it, I don't see a moral issue there. If I enjoy it, they get paid. If I don't, it gets deleted and I think nothing more of it. But going by the letter of the law isn't exactly "artist friendly" either.

Hell, on that subject, Spotify is legal, but it 100% hoses the folks who actually generate the content. Meanwhile, the labels laugh until they piss themselves on the way to the bank.

This hits on the larger issue of how badly screwed MOST artists were under the old label system, which is still clinging on by its fingernails.

I think it IS our business if people are downloading - especially friends who we have an open conduit to - simply because we care about music and want to see more of it made. That means letting people know, "Hey, you may think it's really cool that you haven't paid for music since the late '90s, but this is actually working to ensure you won't get more of this stuff from the people you like hearing from."

The "law" argument is so damn punitive that it's useless. Nobody cares about breaking the law more often than not because most of us - knowingly or otherwise - have broken a few that would get us in the @#$#. It's almost become a point of pride to get away with breaking the law in some quarters for that reason.

What the focus needs to be on here is whether the people who are entertaining us are getting paid for the work they're doing, not whether some label is weeping gravy into their chardonnay or whether some lawyer is lining their pockets suing college students for downloading the latest Metallica before burning their PC tower in disgust at how much it sucks.

Just my take, anyway. Your mileage may vary.   

Quote :

I download someone's work to check it out before buying it, I don't see a moral issue there. If I enjoy it, they get paid. If I don't, it gets deleted and I think nothing more of it.

I like how you put that. What you are doing is trying before you buy. Makes sense.

But there was a time when you could not do that, unless you knew someone who already bought the album. You heard the single, saw the video, and took a chance. Once you had spent your money, it didn't matter at that point whether or not you liked the album...the industry had your money. You could hate the CD and toss it in the bin...the industry still had your money. If you hated it, you had an album you hated and were $15 poorer for it.

That and people replacing vinyl/cassettes with CDs is what caused the late 80s/early 90s "bubble" in the music industry...you HAD to buy it to hear it. The industry was making money hand over fist. The didn't count on some computer nerds figuring out a way to get those 1s and 0s OFF the little plastic disc, and they had no back up plan. Internet sharing of MP3s eliminated the need to buy it first (or at all), that's why CDs will be the last great wave of "new" tech for the music industry in terms of physical product and re-buying. We don't have to buy 'Master Of Puppets' again because we backed it up...or if we lose the CD, we can get a buddies MP3s, or just download it again from a torrent (since you already bought it once, right?)

Shawn, you're definitely spot-on with that. I mean, you still had taping, but then you were getting a copy of a copy of a copy with audio degradation with every generation down you went, so yeah, ripping was a total game-changer.

I do have to wonder though, some sites have been pretty cool about upgrading the quality of downloads sold, but I'll bet money that, when MP3 is finally replaced by FLAC or something like it, people will be buying these files all over again - even if at a discount.

Adding on to that, I think the boom vinyl is experiencing right now is that, while having digital files is convenient and all, there was something to the *experience* of sitting down with a friend and throwing a record on and checking the contents of the album out as a social experience.

I do agree with folks that downloading needs to be tempered with an understanding that what you're listening to cost money to produce, but the responsibility is between the listener and the artist, not some record exec and his entourage. I kind of doubt that any number of laws or lawsuits will strengthen the relationship between listener and artist more than the artists themselves could.

We're in between stages now, but I do think the labels will mostly become niche and most commerce will become more direct via sites like Bandcamp or something yet to be set up.

And then, you'll always have folks like me and (I suspect) most of the folks on HoM who will keep shelling out for physical products because WE LIKED IT THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE!   

Quote :

I do have to wonder though, some sites have been pretty cool about upgrading the quality of downloads sold, but I'll bet money that, when MP3 is finally replaced by FLAC or something like it, people will be buying these files all over again - even if at a discount.

I bet most people won't re-buy anything. The true audiophile types might, but people by and large won't care about, or even notice, the difference between 320 and FLAC.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

I do have to wonder though, some sites have been pretty cool about upgrading the quality of downloads sold, but I'll bet money that, when MP3 is finally replaced by FLAC or something like it, people will be buying these files all over again - even if at a discount.

I bet most people won't re-buy anything. The true audiophile types might, but people by and large won't care about, or even notice, the difference between 320 and FLAC.

Exactly. Most people don't care at all about bitrate.

Sounds like there are just some Butt-Hurt posters here.

Most major labels rip off the bands, anyway, so whether or not you decide to illegally download music won't really affect the outcome of the situation. It's torture enough to price any standard CD over ten dollars. Paying up to twenty dollars for a shitty digipak? No way.

If you want to actually support your favorite bands, then go to their concerts, buy merchandise directly from them, or just send them some money for hookers and blow.

Quote :

Most major labels rip off the bands, anyway

Most of the bands we listen to and talk about here are not on major labels.

Painkiller wrote:

If you want to actually support your favorite bands, then go to their concerts, buy merchandise directly from them, or just send them some money for hookers and blow.

Club owners are much worse than record labels. How much of the entrance fee actually goes to the band?

And if you're not willing to pay for a CD, why is a shirt any better? It's made by whatever company that takes a cut, and they don't even help contribute to the actual music, unlike all the people that helped make the music, like engineers, session musicians, guest writers, and guys hiring equipment.

I guess just "sending them money for hookers and blow" is indeed the best way. But don't forget to send some to the studio folks, too.

Lari wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

If you want to actually support your favorite bands, then go to their concerts, buy merchandise directly from them, or just send them some money for hookers and blow.

Club owners are much worse than record labels. How much of the entrance fee actually goes to the band?

And if you're not willing to pay for a CD, why is a shirt any better? It's made by whatever company that takes a cut, and they don't even help contribute to the actual music, unlike all the people that helped make the music, like engineers, session musicians, guest writers, and guys hiring equipment.

I guess just "sending them money for hookers and blow" is indeed the best way. But don't forget to send some to the studio folks, too.

Shirts at shows are already bought and paid for by the band (usually) and they're getting a direct cut, on the spot, when you buy it. That's a much more direct contribution to a band than an iTunes download or a CD bought at FYE.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

Sounds like there are just some Butt-Hurt posters here.

says the dude finger pointin at Nugent  

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Most of the bands we listen to and talk about here are not on major labels.

I already know that, but this thread is about downloading in general.

Lari wrote:

Club owners are much worse than record labels. How much of the entrance fee actually goes to the band?

And if you're not willing to pay for a CD, why is a shirt any better? It's made by whatever company that takes a cut, and they don't even help contribute to the actual music, unlike all the people that helped make the music, like engineers, session musicians, guest writers, and guys hiring equipment.

I guess just "sending them money for hookers and blow" is indeed the best way. But don't forget to send some to the studio folks, too.

You could make the argument that there are indeed shady businesses -- not just in the recording industry. I still maintain that you have a higher chance of supporting a band through concert attendance, since you can buy their merchandise -- which DOES include their albums, mind you.

If we're talking about mostly underground metal, most producers are indeed some or all of the band members. I'm not saying that we shouldn't support the people in the studio for helping create a band's album, but I'd wager that band members already have to sacrifice a lot of their time and energy for writing at least eight or ten songs, practicing said songs many times to avoid messing up often, and then having the patience to redo their parts during the recording sessions.

Painkiller wrote:

You could make the argument that there are indeed shady businesses -- not just in the recording industry. I still maintain that you have a higher chance of supporting a band through concert attendance, since you can buy their merchandise -- which DOES include their albums, mind you.

If we're talking about mostly underground metal, most producers are indeed some or all of the band members. I'm not saying that we shouldn't support the people in the studio for helping create a band's album, but I'd wager that band members already have to sacrifice a lot of their time and energy for writing at least eight or ten songs, practicing said songs many times to avoid messing up often, and then having the patience to redo their parts during the recording sessions.

While it's not 100%, I have to say that this argument has a lot of merit.

A totally different thread topic here, but the only area I have issue with live music is all the damn fees you pay for tickets anymore. They're starting to squeeze out ANY way of avoiding them as well. Last couple of shows I took in, I just chanced it and bought at the door on the day of the show. The fees are almost half a damn ticket now.

Now, club shows are a different animal altogether, but most of the bands we talk about here are going through some kind of ticketmaster-affiliated venue at their level and lack the push to get those things waived or reduced.

Alot of times the stores and record company's have already paid the bands...for example when you buy a cd from walmart you are paying walmart and they reap the profit because they already bought the cd from the artist and then mark it up and sell it to the public..so its not the artist illegal downloading rips off as much as it is the retailers....

brokentulsa wrote:

Alot of times the stores and record company's have already paid the bands...for example when you buy a cd from walmart you are paying walmart and they reap the profit because they already bought the cd from the artist and then mark it up and sell it to the public..so its not the artist illegal downloading rips off as much as it is the retailers....

True...but then the retailers carry/buy less stock from distributors.