Downloading music free from the internet: Is it wrong?

[Ian Dome]

Nope.

 

Stealing is stealing no matter how you try to justify it it's still wrong IMO.

 

So even if the artist has stolen something, and released it as a bootleg, its still wrong to download a copy?

[Lockjaw]

Apparently... are you saying that you want to sell it but you don't mind if it gets downloaded illegally?

 

Well, ye-e-es, but from a specific perspective.

 

In an ideal (for the seller) world, there would be no illegal downloading. The fact remains, though, that there is. My post was attempting to give a viewpoint from where we are now, having accepted those parameters. Obviously we'd rather sell stuff than give it away; making a cd is not cheap - in fact I've discovered that the cost seems to go up with every email, but one has to be realistic and accept that illegal downloading may take place and, therefore, assess the impact. Having done that, it appears to us that it would be more positive than negative.

 

To expand though, that is only the case given the status quo, i.e. some people steal and some people buy. If everyone chose to steal then I would be in agreement with the black-and-whiteys on this thread: illegal downloading would be detrimental in all cases. The fact remains, though, that, even though illegal downloads are available to anybody with internet access, people still choose to pay for music and therefore, from a purely "business" point of view, I have concluded that illegal downloading would be more likely to be positive than negative for us.

 

I suppose a compromise could be putting samples of your work out for free downloads so that people get the style/quality of your stuff .. if they like it then they'd maybe go and buy it or see you...?

 

Of course - plus the model tried out by Radiohead in which the buyer pays as much as they see fit ... Indeed, Mark Radcliffe did this with his cds when he was at the Greystones the other week ... He said, and I quote as accurately as I am able: " when you make music it's because you want people to hear it, isn't it?" It seemed to have the desired effect, though I should add that we don't all have a bbc salary as back up.

[Guest]

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?

I think in your rush to extrapolate from my posts you're missing my point.

 

The dubious nature of much of file-sharing isn't in question and I, along with anyone who ever shared a mix tape in the 80s, will, of course, burn in hell for all eternity...

 

My point is that file-sharing isn't necessarily disadvantageous for the artist, as I described in some detail above. Does the view that file-sharing isn't entirely negative inevitably lead to a belief that because everything is there for the taking that should be the default method of interaction with electronic media? Of course not.

[XXTickerXX]

Piracy is killing the music and film industries just as home taping and video did.They died after they came out didn`t they.No more millionaires through out the last thirty years.

 

Nov 11

 

"Warner Bros., Right After Announcing Record Profits, Pleads Poverty In Asking People To Support 'Grassroots' Campaign For E-PARASITE Act

from the that's-chutzpah dept

 

It appears that the big Hollywood studios/MPAA have absolutely no shame. Thankfully, employees at some of those companies recognize just how ridiculous their employers look and have been passing along some details. On Wednesday, Warner Bros. announced third quarter profits (not revenue) of $822 million, representing a 57% increase on last year. Revenues were $7.07 billion, 11% higher than last year. The company sent out an email to employees talking about how it was "another record" quarter for the company. Then, very soon after that email went out, another email went out, telling employees about how difficult life was at Warner Bros. these days due to the scourge of "content theft," and urging people to support the astroturfing group CreativeAmerica."

 

 

"How Much Of The Collapse Of Recorded Music Sales Revenue Was Due To The End Of Illegal Price Fixing?

from the just-saying.. dept

 

Harold Feld has made a very important point that has been totally ignored in the debate over the state of the recorded music business. In Cary Sherman's diatribe about how the evil tech industry is destroying the music industry, not only does he pretend that recorded music is representative of the wider music industry's situation (it's not... at all), but he seems to have carefully chosen the date of 1999 as his starting point for the supposed "collapse." Why? Because in 1999 the major record labels (i.e., exactly who the RIAA represents) were charged with illegal price fixing... a practice they then agreed to cease. And, of course, when you stop price fixing, generally speaking your revenue goes down:

 

This is important because in 1999, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the major labels were engaged in an illegal price fixing scheme. The major labels agreed to discontinue their price-fixing practices as part of settlement decree in May 2000. Not surprisingly, once the major labels stopped violating antitrust law, their artificially inflated profits declined and independent competitors saw a significant rise in profits.

 

This is a pretty important point. The "high point" for recorded music sales was completely artificial, not just because of a "legal" monopoly right, but because of illegal antitrust activities in the form of price fixing."

 

Piracy is far over rated.

[splodgeyAl]

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.

What, even when the artist wants you to download it, often free?

[Number Six]

That's not the case, though, is it?

 

Not only is that hugely different to a person illegally downloading a CD at home. Radio stations pay for the music they play regardless of whether you'd want the promotion or not.

 

You cannot compare legal downloading to illegal downloading, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. It's either wrong or it's not.

 

So this is one of the few areas in life where it's absolutely black and white in all situations?

[Bonzo77]

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.

 

If an artist decides to allow free downloads from their website, fair enough.

 

However, you shouldn't have the choice of whether you can own their material without paying for it.

 

There's plenty of ways to stream music for free, spotify & YouTube etc. you don't need to steal an album to be persuaded into buying a concert ticket.

 

You know the reason why it's easier for artists to promote and record themselves? Because they have to. Record companies aren't willing to spend big money on risky artists, like they did in the past.

[splodgeyAl]

That's not the case, though, is it?

 

Not only is that hugely different to a person illegally downloading a CD at home. Radio stations pay for the music they play regardless of whether you'd want the promotion or not.

 

You cannot compare legal downloading to illegal downloading, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. It's either wrong or it's not.

The artist would only be paid for radio play if they were a member of PRS or signed to a label that was a member.

[Bonzo77]

So even if the artist has stolen something, and released it as a bootleg, its still wrong to download a copy?

 

So....If I were to open a printing business that specialised in printing otherpeoples art onto canvas. A bit like the ones you get with Banksy's work on, for example. Am I wrong in charging people to buy my prints? Should I leave the front door to my shop open and invite people to take my bootleg prints for free???

[Ian Dome]

So....If I were to open a printing business that specialised in printing otherpeoples art onto canvas. A bit like the ones you get with Banksy's work on, for example. Am I wrong in charging people to buy my prints? Should I leave the front door to my shop open and invite people to take my bootleg prints for free???

 

You would be paying royalties, so a bad analogy, as i specifically said the artist does not have sample clearance.