Downloading music free from the internet: Is it wrong?

[Location114]

I think stereolab raises an excellent point i personally dont download any music just use things such as youtube etc,

 

Personally im a little shocked that basically you have posted a poll and thread that in another way asks is it ok to break the law by stealing? Because copyright infringement is stealing.

 

I am also shocked at the thought some people have that because these artists are rich it doesnt matter if you steal from them because they can afford it. Im sorry but if you saw a man driving a lambo draw £5,000 out of the bank would you mug him? i mean why not he can obviously afford to replace it. The fact is copyright infringement is stealing, stealing is illegal so no to be honest it isnt ok to do that.

 

However i do understand the point that digital downloads should be cheaper i recently downloaded the amazon mp3 downloader and went to look at a album i wanted when i checked the prices i was less than £1 better off.

I bought american anthems 2 which was £7.99 for the cd or £7.59 for the digital download.

 

I mean why would you for the sake of 40p whats the incentive?

[Ian Dome]

What, are you kidding? You're saying it might be OK to download music based on the criterion of wealth?

 

 

As i said, i know artists personally who are happy for people to download their music freely. There cannot POSSIBLY be a one answer fits all artists. You are lumping a struggling artist in with, for example, Metallica. Now THAT is unfair.

[Rich]

The OP is clearly trolling here, pay him/her/it no mind.

 

For the record, I used to use P2P file sharing services such as Limewire, Napster and Kazaa on a regular basis till I got a nasty virus from Limewire so I uninstalled it and never used it again, now I get all my music legally from Amazon's MP3 service.

[Guest]

...There can be NO circumstances when downloading music / software / games, etc., can be acceptable.

Some artists acknowledge that downloading music is not the black and white issue you believe it to be. Jonathan Coulton, for example, encourages folk to download and share his music:

Although my music is free for people to download and listen to, it's still copyrighted. I just use a Creative Commons license. I know it's completely counterintuitive to say that when people get your music for free it helps you, but I honestly believe it. To paraphrase Tim O'Reilly, piracy is not your enemy, obscurity is. ...

 

But why do you think people buy your music when they can get it for free?

 

I think it comes down to convenience and peace of mind. Maybe they prefer iTunes so that it automatically flows to their iPods. Maybe they got some songs for free from a friend but want the whole album now. Maybe they just want to support the artist — something that works for me because it's clear that money spent at my Website goes to me and not a record label. The truth is, artists are already competing with free — your music can be obtained for free, I guarantee it. So it's important to realize every music purchase represents a choice to spend money. I've always been clear that while I'm happy to let you download for free, I'd rather you actually gave me money. And a lot of people make that choice.

From here, with further discussion to be found on his web site.

 

As he states in one of his most recent blog posts, that downloaded track might lead to the purchase of gig tickets, a splurge at the merchandise table, and an invaluable interest in and support of that artist until, like me, you end up promoting that artist's talents on obscure internet forums...

 

I'm indebted to that person back in 1989 who gave me a copied cassette of 'Spike' and a Costello mixtape; as I'm sure Costello is for the several hundreds of pounds I've spent subsequently on his albums and gigs. The hard cash I've handed over to several other artists (actually, now I come to think of it, most of the artists I've acquired a love for in recent years) has stemmed from someone saying 'here, listen to this'.

 

I don't support a music library gathered entirely from dodgy sources, nor do I support taking the wee with the generosity of artists like Coulton; taking without giving in return isn't cool, and surely you want to support the endeavours of the artists you admire. However, like Coulton, I don't believe that by downloading and sharing music you're automatically and unequivocally the cold-hearted internet thief of some folk's black and white world.

[stereolab]

If people continue to steal music only the major labels remain, they will continue to force manufactured, no risk artists upon our poor ears and concert tickets will continue to increase in price.

 

It's piracy that kills off the chances of new, young, up and coming talent.

 

Do you want to live in a world where you have to pay a subscription to listen to music, or a world where all we hear are reality TV style acts?

 

Pay for your music!!

 

Totally agree - that's the real danger - that only those artists that can make a profit from mega tours and TV Deals will be left, because everyone else will be squeezed out. Forumosaurus seems to think that every musician is a billionnaire with TV deals and Pepsi sponsorship - those I don't care about, but its the smaller labels and artists that will suffer.

 

Buy independent!

[fruitisbad]

Some artists acknowledge that downloading music is not the black and white issue you believe it to be. Jonathan Coulton, for example, encourages folk to download and share his music:

 

From here, with further discussion to be found on his web site.

 

As he states in one of his most recent blog posts, that downloaded track might lead to the purchase of gig tickets, a splurge at the merchandise table, and an invaluable interest in and support of that artist until, like me, you end up promoting that artist's talents on obscure internet forums...

 

I'm indebted to that person back in 1989 who gave me a copied cassette of 'Spike' and a Costello mixtape; as I'm sure Costello is for the several hundreds of pounds I've spent subsequently on his albums and gigs. The hard cash I've handed over to several other artists (actually, now I come to think of it, most of the artists I've acquired a love for in recent years) has stemmed from someone saying 'here, listen to this'.

 

I don't support a music library gathered entirely from dodgy sources, nor do I support taking the wee with the generosity of artists like Coulton; taking without giving in return isn't cool, and surely you want to support the endeavours of the artists you admire. However, like Coulton, I don't believe that by downloading and sharing music you're automatically and unequivocally the cold-hearted internet thief of some folk's black and white world.

 

 

exactly. a free download will lead me to buy gig tickets, unreleased material, vinyl, t shirts, all which gives more money to the ARTISTS! It's the record companies who are scared to lose their millions.

 

anyone remember when cd's cost 13 quid but cost around 2quid to make? good riddance to the money grabbers.

[fruitisbad]

Totally agree - that's the real danger - that only those artists that can make a profit from mega tours and TV Deals will be left, because everyone else will be squeezed out. Forumosaurus seems to think that every musician is a billionnaire with TV deals and Pepsi sponsorship - those I don't care about, but its the smaller labels and artists that will suffer.

 

Buy independent!

 

people do tend to support this sort of thing. its easier and cheaper than ever to produce and promote music. rather than big record co.s forcing tripe down your neck artists will get noticed due to their talent. giving your music away gets you the widest audience

[Chris_Sleeps]

It's piracy that kills off the chances of new, young, up and coming talent.

How? Will people stop making music when they can't earn a living off of selling records anymore?

 

anyone remember when cd's cost 13 quid but cost around 2quid to make? good riddance to the money grabbers.

I remember buying a White Stripes album for £16. I'd never pay that now.

[swordfish1]

The OP is clearly trolling here, pay him/her/it no mind.

 

For the record, I used to use P2P file sharing services such as Limewire, Napster and Kazaa on a regular basis till I got a nasty virus from Limewire so I uninstalled it and never used it again, now I get all my music legally from Amazon's MP3 service.

 

 

Why is it trolling? It's a legitimate question as millions of people are doing it every day.

You yourself admit to using P2P in the past. Were these all legal downloads?

 

Also it reads like you only stopped using P2P because of a virus. If you'd not got the virus on your computer, would you still be using the P2P's?

[Ian Dome]

Also it reads like you only stopped using P2P because of a virus. If you'd not got the virus on your computer, would you still be using the P2P's?

 

Yeah thats how i read it.

 

P2P is so 90s. I remember Kazaa, Emule, Napster and Audiogalaxy Satellite.. got me into mountains of stuff i'd never have heard. Now you can just use google..