I know so many people that choose to steal mp3s rather than buy music. Im tired of all the lame excuses for why people say this is okay to do. This is theft and it affects everyone from the musicians down to the fans.
Pirating music means labels have a harder time staying a float and releasing quality music. I suggest everyone take a step back every time they illegally download something and think about how theft is affecting the artist that you are stealing from. Go buy vinyl it sounds better and supports the musicians, and labels that release the music.
300 PIXELS DAMMIT
300 PIXELS DAMMIT
what about burning? is
what about burning? is burning bad? i dont ever download, but i do burn cds like everyone. i mean, ynknow, taking a promo copy of something, making a duplicate. is that theft? it didn't really exist, that promo. it so could've been tossed in the trash.
but yeah, vinyl kicks ass, and its the best. eff the digi.
I don't think you can equate
I don't think you can equate music downloading with physical theft. It's not the same. bands and record labels don't necessarily "lose" money when I download something. 98% of the time they were never going to get money from me anyways. Without the occasional downloading I do every now and then, most of the music I listen to would be completely unknown to me. Then I don't go to live shows and I don't buy merch, and I never play these bands' songs on my show. Or tell other people about them. Is this is supposed to be better? As it is, I buy a fair amount of cds and vinyl when I can - from bands I know I like. If I were to completely stop downloading music right now, I would NOT start buying more music. Nothing changes for the record labels regardless of whether I download or not.
ps. this was in response to the blog post not dean's comment, oops
Looks like a lame excuse to me
So you weren't going to buy it any way so it's not stealing. Wow where did you learn ethics from. So because you weren't going to give the label money it's okay to take what isn't rightfully yours. You sound like you are "Ms./Mr. Entitled". Bands today have music on sites like last FM and myspace that allow you to check out the music and sample it while you are at your computer. These tracks the bands are using as a promotional tool to allow you to listen to there music make a decision on if you like it or not and then you can choose to go to their shows, buy merch, tell friends about the band, and buy records from said artist. But no "Ms./Mr. Entitled" has to own the music for themself and have a digital copy for themself, even if they didn't pay for it. And even without these music networks, as a music fan maybe you could hang out in a record store and listen to records and buy the ones you like and pass on the others. I can and will equate illegal downloading to physical theft, you are taking what isn't yours. That is a very simple idea even little kids can understand. Trying to twist it into a ethically gray area is cowardly, at least own up to what your doing.
I discovered my favorite
I discovered my favorite band 3 years ago when I stumbled on their website and they had nearly their entire discography up to download for free. I'm pretty sure they still do. The rationale that proliferation will only benefit the artist in the end is a valid one, and I think many bands understand this. Since that discovery, I've bought a few of their albums that weren't up on their website (and some that were) as well as their new album that just came out. And no kidding, as I was writing this I just saw a guy walk by wearing a t-shirt of the band. That was an odd coincidence. I'm willing to bet he discovered them the same way I did. In this case it was perfectly legal, but the concept is the same. I could just as easily have "stolen" their music if they hadn't given it away.
You feel strongly about this and I respect that. I realize there's a lot of grey area spinning and twisting on the part of "bittorrent apologists" like myself but I don't think it's wholly unjustified.
I think the very distinct
I think the very distinct diference is that the artist chose to give their music away for free on a digital format. A similar scenario happened when I went to the By The End of Tonight show about 6 months ago, the band chose to give away free 7" splits that they had there. Now if I were to walk up to their merch table and just taken a 7" split with out them saying each person may take one for free that would be theft. I think its great when bands choose to give away free music, but we as music listeners cannot take it upon ourselves to say when its okay to get the music for free or not. That is up to the artist/label.
Also have you considered that labels don't benefit from you going to shows, and buying merch. Only the band does. Labels release the music and in some situations pay to have the music recorded. If music fans don't support the labels and just steal the music the bands you like so much will not have enough album sales to continue releasing music and touring in support of their releases.
Its just kinda sad that because people have the ability to steal music they do, and it is slowly killing many independent record companies. I know people that own 160GB of music but own few CDs or Records. It sickens me to think that they call themselves fans of these bands but these bands are the very people they are stealing from. Really great bands have to stop releasing things because labels can't even break even on releases, and its the people that come to their shows, tell their friends about the bands, and buy merch but illegally download music that is making this happen.
i completely agree
yes, i do. if i didn't occassionally DL music, i would have never found out about some music that i now love.
My Corvet
Yeah I occasionally steal Cars I wouldn't drive nearly as nice of automobiles if I didnt steal them.
you see, that analogy just
you see, that analogy just doesn't make any sense at all. a car is a tangible object. stealing a physical object is pretty straightforward. I once had a car worth 20K, now it's gone. There's a loss there that's clearly evident. It's completely different when you're talking about non-tangibles. That's why whenever the RIAA trots about ridiculous numbers and claims that record labels lose millions of dollars a year due to downloading is nonsense. I could download a Madonna album right now. Would you say that Virgin, or whatever label she's on, just had money stolen from them? There's no inherent value in digital music. Again, this is starting to get into grey area. But don't make simplistic comparisons like car theft. That's just silly.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.w
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/...
Yeah
I've read that blod before it's kinda funny if you put a side the fact that it's horribly racist.
racist? i disagree... it's
racist? i disagree... it's just satire.
Satire? Really?
Would you consider it satire if you inserted any other race into the title? It's only tolerated because it's making fun of white culture. People wouldn't tolerate it if it weren't about white people. I consider a blog dedicated to comedy through sterotyping a race racist.
Oh fellas: I wasn't going to
Oh fellas: I wasn't going to comment, because um, you know: blog: meaningful dialogue: I'm sure I'd be missing the point somewhere. But I had to comment as I read the last response. Oh Brian, don't be so dense. 'Stuff White People Like' is written by a white person. And further, I'm sure most of the people who get a kick out of it are white.
The blog gets away with it by not over-generalizing and straight-jacketing people, even though it says otherwise. It focuses on a particular type of person, namely 'hipster yuppie' if you will and gently lampoons some of their calling cards. It mocks the stereotypes even as it uses them. After all, who could be against environmental concern and good health (some of the ongoing posts)?
By adding all of the posts from the blog together you don't get the white race (whatever that means). It's not racist. Titling it "stuff white people like" is just provocative and a give-away that the author doesn't take it seriously and neither should the readers. And yes, it is very funny. Not because it's vicious or the truth, but because it's well written, and we can all see a little bit of ourselves in the blog.
I say that as someone who is half brown. Wait, I'm sorry that was so negative, I'm half white (variation on Sarah Silverman (#53 on swpl) joke). Zinger.
I know its satire and all I
I know its satire and all I was trying to play the ultra PC card. I agree "Stuff White People Like" is funny and is mocking yuppie culture.
This whole blog was in away a joke for me to play to see how many people would come out of the wood work to defend illegal downloading. While I could play "Mr. Moral Highground" and sit back and make the argument about why illegal downloads are bad.
I found that image when I searched for "Japanese Power Metal" on google, I just had to post about it. You know me I love Russian propaganda looking art especially when there is a interesting tranfusion of Satan and Josef Stalin looking over the shoulder of the Mac user while he illegally downloads.
What if you're too poor to
What if you're too poor to afford music?
Thats just too bad. Music
Thats just too bad. Music isn't bread you don't need it to feed your starving family. If you can't afford it then save up until you can. Stealing cannot be justified because you want something that you can't afford.
anyways. morality ain't no
anyways. morality ain't no issue har, boyee. theft happens, no matter how you define and/or debase it, and prob'ly will fo'evah. since you ain't no god (i got it on high 'thority), you ain't tell no one no how what's wrong err right. boyee.
if walmart couldn't deal with theft, they'd go out of business. if the music industry can't deal with it - oh well. it's not like people are going to stop making music for a silly thing like money.
LOL Im not a god
No Im not a god. That doesn't mean I can't make some observations and opinions on whats right and wrong. Im under the impression that in a capitalistic community private property is one of the most important entities, taking whats not yours legally goes against what our capitalistic society stands for. And since morality isnt really decided by gods but rather by societies Im gonna go ahead and say that theft is wrong based on our societies notions of morality. And just because Walmart is able to funtion with theft doesn't mean the people stealing from them are doing a good thing. Plus Wal-mart and independent record labels are completely different things. You're right music will not cease to be made but quality recorded music will take a hit. I could care less if huge corporate record companies have a safe guard against theft, but independent labels don't and are already being forced to shut down. Eventually good independent music could be hard to come by. Oh and don't call me boyee.
who are these "dying labels"?
what are some examples of record labels being "shut down"? "bob's awesome dorm room records"? some metal record label in florida that has 3 bands with "fetus" somewhere in their name or their song titles? who are these poor souls. i want to know. yeah, yeah, local music, i know, poor dudes, but who says they need to survive? it's a tough game. sorry if your 7 inch label went under that sucks. not that any labels are less worthy than others...no....i really feel like the downloading thing is just something all labels have to adapt to. natural selection. and all the ones i buy from, touch n go, matador, sst, alt. tentacles, kill rock stars, whatever, are all pretty small and shitty when you slice you but are still totally kicking. right? i feel bad for these "small" labels that are being "shut down" (whoever they are), but maybe they just need a new plan. these small guys need to adapt. is that the downloader's burden? hrmmm.....no one said the music recording business was easy, for labels or musicians. this is a really, really, terrible example, but lets take 1930s-40s era live action theatre or soemthing. tv comes along. its easier way to get the same thing. you can watch "macbeth" at home! do theatres freak out, start crying and die? no, they suffer a bit, and then adapt and rebuild and live on because there was something richly qualitative about theatre that people keep on coming back to. likewise, yeah i can download all the big black i want (albini - ive never actually done this), but when push comes to shove, and i see "the hammer party" for 8 bucks on vinyl, im totally going to buy it. if something's good and talented (a label), eventually it will get it's just desserts. and will survive as an entity despite a few thousand college students downloading. theres just something so captivating about actually having something thats worth having. its just easier for the bigger labels then the smallers. oh and lars ulrich and the ultra rich rockstars need not complain. forget them.
Don't take it from me hear
Don't take it from me hear what these independent labels have to say. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog....
where's the incentive for
where's the incentive for the consumer? why would someone go out of their way to buy music when, with just a couple of clicks they can have their own personal copy without having to pay for anything? Its basic economics, rational self interest, if you can get it for free, why go pay?
Sure there's the whole argument of keeping indie music alive and shutting down bands and such, but if the artist is truly passionate about their music, they will keep on making tunes whether or not it makes money at all. So, by downloading music illegally, consumers are metaphorically separating the wheat from the chaff when it come to independent music. They will be left with a more passionate inspired music instead of the same ol' crappy catchy tunes that have been repeated since god knows when.
The only bad part that I could see coming out of this music downloading business is a hike in the prices of concerts and merchandise, and this would be a small price to pay for free music for the masses.
And as another counter metaphor, if i told you i knew a way to get free gas and there was a minimal risk of being caught, would you do it? sure you'd be hurting the big gas companies, and at the same time you'd be hurting the small indie gas companies too; but what do you care, youre going where ever you want to for free.
But Im sure its only a matter of time till the music industry finds a way to monopolize on this filesharing business anyways, so you might as well enjoy it while it lasts, or just wait about 5 years when music owns half the country after it cashes in on all the illegal downloading data is been stockpiling since the creation of the internet.
Wheres the incentive for a
Wheres the incentive for a label to release music for a band. Yeah musicians won't stop making music but I want to be able to get new albums that sound good. If no one is buying albums the market to create them ceases to exist and labels will choose not to release music because its too much of a risk.
there's no need to trot out
there's no need to trot out this "weeding out" argument. artist DO make money thanks (yes, thanks) to file sharing and they WILL CONTINUE to. no offense, but you're kinda selling out the whole argument in favor of downloading. plus, none of that takes into account the label either. although you could also argue 1. who cares about the label? and 2. are labels even hurting? (like daren said) but I digress...my point is, even as a file-sharing proponent this argument is weak and totally unnecessary
you know...
viability of Independent music wouldn't exist without file-sharing, legal or illegal. A lot of these indies die because (to think like a economist) there's way too many of them. And they mostly put out shit. How many CDs do your music directors get every Tuesday? And how many of them get in the new bin? and how many times does the average album get played per week? I bet "crank dat soulja boy" got more play in one day than the most heavily rotated independent artist did in their whole existence.
Without file sharing, SxSw wouldn't be as big as it is now. There would be no Austin City Limits Festival, Cochella, or most of these festivals that feature independent artists because there wouldn't be a community to support them. Pitchfork would be still obscure rather than taste makers they are now. Legal file sharing is becoming a billion dollar industry, mostly in response to the fact that the industry wasn't changing with the technology and people were looking to places like Napster.
Musicians need to stop viewing their music as a commodity and stop seeing it as it should be-- as art. If music was sold according to the basic market principles of supply and demand, most music, meaning independent music, would be nearly worthless to the point it might as well be free. As a music director, the plastic casing was more valuable to us than the music we got. All media is becoming more consolidated every day to point where most media is owned by 3 or four corporate conglomerates. They keep their prices artificially high by controlling distribution, radio and tv play, and advertising, and with an army of lobbyists and lawyers who buy politicians and shake down 12 year-olds. My Ipod holds around 10,000 songs, about 10-20 percent I listen to regularly. Who can afford to pay $10,000 for music?
Rather if we all paid $50 a year and artists would be paid royalties according to how much there song gets played, the industry could maintain itself while being responsive to consumers with the enormous amount of consumer data they'll get and independent artists can compete.
So now you know, and knowing is half the battle
First of all fuck Pitchfork.
First of all fuck Pitchfork. ACL is lame, Cochella is lame, Indie rock is LAME. But I disagree with you in that festivals featuring independent artists wouldn't exist without filesharing, there were plenty of fests in the 90s that featured independent atists before filesharing was around. Your right alot of independent labels die because there are too many of them, but then there are others that are well known releasing good music that is being stolen instead of bought and they suffer from the decrease in sales. Musicians and the labels that release music rightfully own the music they have released thats simple, if you take whats not yours initially its theft, live with it, you suck and so on.
To me music is worth alot and I don't feel like Im entitled to free music. The musicians and labels I support thrive on people like me and thats why I can atleast say alot of the music I like will continue to be released, trraded, and sold on a small scale the way it has for years before and years to come.
Im done with this thread, bring up some new aguments for why its an ethically righteous thing to do. You all have the "Kill Em All let God Sort Em Out" mentality. Thank you all for defending theft it really warms my heart to know how the indie rockers feel about all this.
Youth Against Fascism
Poor people should be denied access to music? Thwarting underground artistic movements? White Supremacy(something metal heads have a visible problem with apparently)?
Sounds like fascism to me.
You know, to go along with the prevailing theme of illogical arguments.
Honestly, you can't stop people from raping toddlers, filesharing pales in comparison to all the other, much more horrible things, that happen in the world.
(also http://www.negativland.com/albini.html)
Mars you're so silly
Mars you're so silly here let me help you out.
fas·cism
–noun
1.a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
See that has nothing to do with advocating buying goods and products rather than stealing them. Look here is what you were looking for.
cap·i·tal·ism
–noun
1.an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
2.An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption.
Wow metal heads are racist thats not good is it. Good thing it has nothing to do with illegal file sharing . Also a good thing I don't like metal music.
There certainly are worse things than file sharing how about we try to put an end to all the bad things including music theft. Oh and Mars please do tell me where my arguments are illogical. Just saying they lack logic doesn't make it true.
Oh Brian, you crack me up.
Oh Brian, you crack me up. You see, your arguments are illogical and fragmented, me calling you a fascist was an allusion to that. Haha, I thought you would get that, but boy was I wrong!
But now that I see your response to Cody's post, it's obvious you're only joking and only pretending to argue badly. You're hilarious, kid. HILARIOUS!!!
touchy
I wasn't making an argument for illegal file-sharing. I certainly wasn't an ethical argument, especially one that is absolutist. I was simply pointing out the Independent artists benefit from file-sharing, more than they would if it didn't exist. Despite what you think is or isn't lame, lots of artists make their living from doing these festivals which have increased internationally probably 4 or 5 fold since the 90s and include more artists and have more attendees. They certainly make more money there than they do from selling albums. Devendra Banhart probably made more from one Fat Tire commercial than he did for record sales on the album. Most indie record labels release around 5 to 10,000 units of an album. How many of those do you think they sell? Then divide that amount by the number of people in the band which normally averages 4, with the songwriter/leader getting more. The ones that sell more than are on small majors like Matador, Merge, Domino, XL, ..etc who are acting more and more like big majors.
The Major labels steal much more from the artists than file-sharers. And on the ethical tip: what if I stole your CD from your merch table and made 10 copies and gave it to my friends. Of the 10 people, bought the album, and then gave 10 copies to 10 people, and so on. Even if the number was only one out of 10, that's still double your profit. This is the 21st century, ethics and morals change with technology--it's not black or white.
Brian, you keep throwing
Brian, you keep throwing around the "entitled" accusation but that's really not how it is. I don't feel "entitled" to all the music that's out there. It's a genuine curiosity. And hey, guess what, I'm not gonna shell out thousands of dollars so I can have all of it in physical form. Too bad? Then it's also too bad for the artist who never gets heard because no one's gonna pay $15 dollars on a whim for their new LP. AW up here hit on some pretty good points. Music is not a concrete commodity - and that's a very very important point. It's like arguing abortion when the two sides have completely different views on what constitutes a living person. You're stuck on this notion that each time someone downloads something there's is negative transaction taking place. It's a fallacy.
And I'm leaving it at that.
Canada Rules
Let's all move to Canada, so we can make shitty records for free.
http://www.canadaart.info/filesE/funding.html
This whole thing about music as money, bottomline --- and when not getting the same amount of money you did last year is a problem --- sickens me. Seems like MUSICIANS feel ENTITLED to be rock stars and get paid millions just for making art. That seems like a worse sin than browsing MP3s. So musicians, stick to yo day job if your indie album/label aint selling.
Post new comment