If you pirate music, you're downloading communism!

[Jonathan Smith]

So we are are all equally 'morally bankrupt'? :)

2009/3/27 Albert Bouchard <albert at cellsum.com>

> 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.
>>
>>