If you pirate music, you're downloading communism!

[Albert Bouchard]

I wonder where you get that 90% figure. In my experience most people  
who download music download songs that are already popular. Otherwise  
the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They do not use downloading  
as a way to "discover" new acts. They have internet radio to do that  
and much of it is quite good IMHO. I think that most people who  
download obscure acts do it because said acts, while being quite  
excellent in musical and other ways, have gotten discouraged and  
broken up by the time the true music enthusiast has actually  
discovered them. An ironic shame really.

Am I upset because people download my mixes of Imaginos? No, because  
they would not be available otherwise. Maybe the folks at Sony would  
because they own the masters but it's already been paid for by me and  
the other guys in BOC so it should really be no skin off their noses.  
But the RIAA is standing up for people who've invested a lot of time  
and money into their craft and don't feel it's right for their work to  
be distributed for free. That's the bottom line, if you created it  
then you should have a say in what people should have to do to get it.  
Lots of artists give their music away for free and even more don't  
mind if people download it. There's plenty of music that is available  
for free. Why should people need to steal it? Isn't this obvious?

I am sorry but much of the many arguments presented here just sound  
like rationalization. Is it really stealing? We're just getting our  
share from greedy people. It's a technology issue. Apple stole the  
iPod from Creative (who stole their drawing pad from wacom). Everybody  
lies, everybody steals. But it still comes down to that same bottom  
line. If we sanction stealing are we not becoming morally bankrupt?
Al

On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Alex S. Garcia wrote:

> Interesting thread and good timing, as there is a lot of talk about  
> a new
> law here in France to fight against "illegal downloading" (the Hadopi
> law).
>
> Ian wrote:
>
>> I don't have any answers, but i do disagree in general with  
>> freeloading
> from professional musicians, it is
>> fundamentally theft, and should be dealt with appropriately.
>
> There is an aspect that most people seem not to realize (or  
> purposefully
> ignore) which is that 90% of the people who download DO still buy CD's
> (and go to movies, buy video games, watch TV, etc). These people  
> simply
> use downloading as a means to discover music they wouldn't be able  
> to know
> otherwise. It's a selection tool. Just like borrowing a CD from a  
> friend
> and deciding you like it enough to buy it. So why is the RIAA pissed?
> Because this of course does not fit their plans of selling just any  
> crap
> to the public at large. People are becoming more picky and selective.
>
> Of course there are also people who just can't afford to buy music.  
> For
> them downloading is the only way they can listen to the music they  
> like.
> The artists they listen to thus gain listeners who will most likely  
> buy
> some of their music in the future (provided their financial situation
> improves... and that they don't first get sued & bankrupted by their
> favorite artist or the artist's label!)
>
>> However there are some real flaws here, out of print, discontinued,
> simply unavailable, and rare records, plus live
>> boots all need to be available, and under strict laws they are  
>> illegal.
>
> Yep. That is another important issue. Laws as they currently stand  
> tend to
> place everything in the same bag.
>
>> Whilst i'm against people getting fined.
>
> The Hadopi law mentioned earlier proposes to give downloaders 3  
> warnings,
> after which (if they do not stop) their internet connection would be  
> shut
> down by their ISP (though they would still have to pay for it!) This  
> is
> wrong in so many ways... I doubt it will hold though, as many people  
> are
> stating this would go against human rights (as it would block access  
> to an
> important source of cultural information). Besides, some folks on the
> internet have already come up with a way to make the law obsolete (by
> mixing in fake IP's to the ones of real downloaders, meaning that
> innocents could just as easily end up getting sued for something they
> never did!)
>
>> I am also against musicians
>> getting ripped off, they already get that enough
>> from the record company.
>
> Heh, I think the artists are getting more ripped off by the labels  
> then
> they are by downloading. And if anyone is really getting hurt by the
> downloading (which I seriously doubt) it would be more the labels
> themselves for that matter.
>
> By the way, one of the many reasons why I doubt that downloading is  
> having
> such a terrible effect on the industry is because of the comic book  
> scene.
> All the comic book stores that have been questioned on this matter  
> have
> stated that sales have actually *increased* since the downloading of  
> comic
> books started. So I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of why  
> the
> music & movie industries are supposedly going the other way... I  
> think the
> comic book stores are just being much more honest about the whole  
> thing
> ;-)
>
> And remember folks, when the VCR first appeared everyone got scared  
> and
> started worrying about copyright infringements as well. I just hope  
> things
> get resolved as smoothly...
>
>> I play in a band and released the music via our own record label, its
> not expensive, and we can have it on amazon etc
>> if we want. I've not gone to see if the music is available on line  
>> for
> download, I don't really care, we are a 2 bit band
>> that charges £5 for a CD. We all have fulltime jobs, so we are not
> dependant on the money collected through sales.
>> However If I was in a serious band, trying to get up the ladder, or  
>> even
> already up the ladder and each CD sale is
>> part of my actual salary, I'd be pretty p*ss*d off if any of my=2
> 0CURRENT IN PRINT albums appeared online for people do
>> download..
>
> Not me. I'm working on a number of albums myself and really wouldn't  
> care
> either way. I guess as a writer I just want people to have access to  
> what
> I do. It is a form of expression after all. Sure, earning a living  
> from it
> would be pretty cool (and yes, it is the ultimate goal) but I'm pretty
> sure that can be achieved regardless of downloads (I really doubt U2  
> or
> Metallica will ever be poor because of people downloading their  
> music!) I
> really am not worried about this.
>
>>> Hey Al, have you heard of the approach that the UK is taking (or  
>>> maybe
>>> has taken?) to make music downloading llegal, and pay for though  
>>> some
>>> kind of network tax or surcharge, which is then to be divided  
>>> among the
>>> music industry?  Sort of like what they did in the US with cassette
>>> tapes?
>>
>> They did that in the Netherlands, too, and they're still doing that  
>> with
>> CD-Rs, and undoubtably DVD-Rs.
>
> In France too! And that's another thing that pisses me off. If we are
> paying a tax for blank CD's & DVD's then why the heck are the  
> authorities
> bugging us about downloads?!? That's what those taxes are supposed  
> to be
> for! Of course, they're not being too vocal about it... they'd  
> rather we
> forgot about the tax, heh!
>
> M. Holmes:
>
>> There's an interesting debate all in itself. If you record a TV  
>> show to
>> watch later, it's "timeshift recording" and is quite legal. If you  
>> forget
>> to delete it after having watched it though, it now becomes illegal.
>
> Now this is very interesting. It seems to imply though that you can  
> keep
> it as long as you want so long as you haven't watched it yet... In  
> which
> case, how do you prove whether you've watched something on your  
> computer
> yet or not? :-o
>
>> It was technology which gifted the entertainment industries with vast
>> riches through mass-production and now technology is taking it all  
>> away.
>> Crying "Unfair!" and trying to prosecute the buyers into bankruptcy  
>> isn't
>> going to change the end result one iota. In fact it's more likely to
>> speed up the endgame through people becoming sickened at such antics.
>
> Oh definitely. And it's already started. I've heard of several cases  
> of
> folks who were sued by labels and vowed to never again buy anything  
> from
> those specific labels. Great customer service! Heh.
>
>
>
> Alex.
>