Downloading music free from the internet: Is it wrong?

[truman]

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...

 

 

It could also lead to more "pirate" downloads of the artist's music..some people download hundreds of artists' work..are you saying they buy tickets/merchandise for them all? as you say it's a two edged sword but I suspect downloaders take more than they give..

[Number Six]

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

 

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

 

I presume you mean downloading it for nothing without the consent of the artist?

 

Personally I'd be happy for, say, Bruno Brookes, Dave Pearce or Adrian Juste (or whoever is on Radio 1 now - Edmonds?) to download one of my tracks illegally and without my consent and play it on their show. I suspect most artists would feel the same, which rather undermines your 'no circumstances' argument.

[Guest]

It could also lead to more "pirate" downloads of the artist's music..some peoplel download hundreds of artists' work..are you saying they buy tickets/merchandisae for them all? as you say it's a two edged sword but I suspect downloaders take more than they give..

Bold: that's exactly what I didn't say. I said that for some artists merchandise sales, gig ticket sales, word-of-mouth expansion of the fan base, and purchases subsequent to the downloaded samples are useful outcomes in a world where file-sharing isn't necessarily an entirely 'OMG, you're an irredeemable thief!!11!!!' issue.

[sandy1234]

Yep I agree with what ur saying

[truman]

Bold: that's exactly what I didn't say. I said that for some artists merchandise sales, gig ticket sales, word-of-mouth expansion of the fan base, and purchases subsequent to the downloaded samples are useful outcomes in a world where file-sharing isn't necessarily an entirely 'OMG, you're an irredeemable thief!!11!!!' issue.

 

If an artist wants their material to be treat as a "taster" and be a free download then that's fine and is up to them ... do you think it's right to just download anything..? It's a genuine question.. in the same vein would you nick a book from Waterstone's just to see if you would like to buy some more from the same author?

[dpmw1987]

download it to see if you like it and if you do buy it, if not delete it. pretty sure artists need illegal downloads so people hear the music and would wanna see them at gigs where they make the most money. Not that it's right to download illegally but more money goes to the artist through tours and merchandise

[Rich]

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?

 

No, I wouldn't still use P2P downloading, as it's mostly illegal and as I work for SYP I can't do anything illegal or it comes up on my CRB check.

[Lockjaw]

It could also lead to more "pirate" downloads of the artist's music..some people download hundreds of artists' work..are you saying they buy tickets/merchandise for them all? as you say it's a two edged sword but I suspect downloaders take more than they give..

 

Individuals (some) definitely but what about downloaders as a whole?

 

We have our first album coming out soon and have considered the potential impact of piracy. Leaving aside the moral issues, the impact is far from straightforward and has been dealt with, in detail, by Hecate but, to add a personal perspective:

 

This cannot be quantified but my feeling is that the majority of downloaded material wouldn't have been bought if the "free" download wasn't available. That is self evident if, as you say, people download hundreds of artists' work ... it wouldn't be financially conceivable for them to buy it all. That being the case, the majority of downloaded stuff causes no material loss to the copyright owner.

 

I'll reiterate here that I'm not attempting any justification - just considering the impact.

 

It seems to us, therefore, that if our lowly album appeared on one of the download sites that it would be a positive result. Somebody considered it worth sharing; somebody else may hear it and share it on to somebody who chooses to buy their own copy. So, possibly no loss and the potential for gain.

 

Now, we don't have "merchandise" (though I could knock up a set of Jack's Rake clothes pegs if anyone is keen) and rarely, apart from charity events, do gigs with an entrance fee so there are no potential gains in those areas but the main source of funds for us is private functions. Weddings and parties are the only gigs we do where we properly cover our expenses and make a bit that can go towards some equipment or financing the cd or whatever. It is, therefore, an advantage to us to, simply, be known. If hundreds of people download our music illegally and one of them has a party coming up ... result!

[truman]

download it to see if you like it and if you do buy it, if not delete it. pretty sure artists need illegal downloads so people hear the music and would wanna see them at gigs where they make the most money. Not that it's right to download illegally but more money goes to the artist through tours and merchandise

 

If they thought Free downloading was necessary then wouldn't they just put their music up on websites enabled for this?

[truman]

Individuals (some) definitely but what about downloaders as a whole?

 

We have our first album coming out soon and have considered the potential impact of piracy. Leaving aside the moral issues, the impact is far from straightforward and has been dealt with, in detail, by Hecate but, to add a personal perspective:

 

This cannot be quantified but my feeling is that the majority of downloaded material wouldn't have been bought if the "free" download wasn't available. That is self evident if, as you say, people download hundreds of artists' work ... it wouldn't be financially conceivable for them to buy it all. That being the case, the majority of downloaded stuff causes no material loss to the copywright owner.

 

I'll reiterate here that I'm not attempting any justification - just considering the impact.

 

It seems to us, therefore, that if our lowly album appeared on one of the download sites that it would be a positive result. Somebody considered it worth sharing; somebody else may hear it and share it on to somebody who chooses to buy their own copy. So, possibly no loss and the potential for gain.

 

Now, we don't have "merchandise" (though I could knock up a set of Jack's Rake clothes pegs if anyone is keen) and rarely, apart from charity events, do gigs with an entrance fee so there are no potential gains in those areas but the main source of funds for us is private functions. Weddings and parties are the only gigs we do where we properly cover our expenses and make a bit that can go towards some equipment or financing the cd or whatever. It is, therefore, an advantage to us to, simply, be known. If hundreds of people download our music illegally and one of them has a party coming up ... result!

 

Why not cobble up a website and distribute it yourself? Taks the illegality out of it.