Downloading music free from the internet: Is it wrong?

[Bonzo77]

Yeah but a sample can be part of another persons song.

 

I'm not sure it is illegal because as far as I'm aware, (I say as far as I'm aware, actually I mean, I know) Youtube puts ads on my videos and the money is split betwixt the artists.

 

Thus the artist consents to it being on Youtube.

 

That's fair enough. Everyone consents. That doesn't make downloading music without paying right.

[discodown]

Yeah but a sample can be part of another persons song.

 

I'm not sure it is illegal because as far as I'm aware, (I say as far as I'm aware, actually I mean, I know) Youtube puts ads on my videos and the money is split betwixt the artists.

 

Thus the artist consents to it being on Youtube.

Just because a sample can be part of a song doesn't mean its ok to use samples without permission. there are examples of artists making records that unintentionally sound like other artists work and the original artist successfully suing.

 

Possibly the most famous example is The Rolling Stones getting royalties from The Verve for Bittersweet Symphony. The Verve didn't intentionally sample anything, it was a series of chord changes that a court ruled sounded enough like the Stones that it justified them paying Mick and Keith.

 

another good example is The Avalanches who made a whole album of tracks in the 90's out of samples of other records and made almost no money out of it. There were so many problems working out who should get paid what that the album almost didn't get released.

[Karis]

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

 

Let's just get one thing absolutely clear. You can try (as you clearly want to) to mitigate stealing but while there may be all sorts of long-winded and emotive reasons for doing something, at its heart, stealing is still stealing.

 

Regardless of intent, desire, or good meaning, it's still taking something that doesn't belong to you.

 

Feel free to get into a morality debate about it, but there's a clear line here.

[ratter71]

Would there be a moral objection to downloading copies of Led Zeppelin tracks such as "Dazed & Confused", "Whole Lotta Love" or "Babe Im Gonna Leave You"

[shims]

Asides from the statute.

 

Is it 'wrong' to download free copies of music online.

If you are meaning morally wrong well, if you would have bought the release but have now chosen not to as a result of an illegal download, then yes: it is wrong. You are enjoying someone's work without paying; depriving them of income.

 

We're constantly told that unless we pay for music, artists will stop making songs. I think that's ridiculous.

It costs money to record, produce and release music. There is no doubt whatsoever that illegal sharing has been responsible for the closure of many worthwhile record labels and the far diminished output of others.

 

I think most of us can remember a time where bands did it for the music rather than the money.

Assuming a professional musician works purely for the love is naive.

 

Would they carry on if people didn't buy their songs? I would suggest most of their money is made from TV/Sponsors/Touring now anyway.

So it's ok to steal from them if you are only stealing part of their income?

 

There are a lot more artists than the select few you see on television.

 

If you weren't going to buy it anyway, does that make it less wrong? Because they were never going to get your money in the first place?

I guess it does, however you are still enjoying something without paying the associated cost. If it's not worth buying it's arguable that it's worth having.

 

Is it worse to make one copy of a song for you to listen to in your house, or for you to make these rich unappreciative mega-stars and their record companies even richer and put your money towards their 5th Lamborghini?

That's about as logical as assuming that the girl at the counter in the building society earns wages akin to Fred Goodwin.

 

Quality music can be made on a PC nowdays, with many top solo artists recording their music in their own homes.

Music is cheap; why must we pay for it? More nonsense. some music is created cheaply. If you only want to listen to music on the cheap, you could stick to non-copywrite works.

 

The music industry wouldn't die if we all downloaded music without paying

So that makes everything ok?

 

sure some people might not be able to buy their 5th Hollywood mansion

Another sweeping stereotype which ignores much of reality!

 

but there'd still be great music being made, probably more meaningful that the bile which is put out nowdays just to make money.

Why would you want to download what you consider 'bile'? I assume you realise there is also great music still being released?

 

Should artists have to go out there to sing live and work hard like us for their money? After all, it's just a copy, if you were never going to buy it in the first place then they haven't lost anything.

Well, even if they were an artist who was less inclined to perform live, perhaps like some of these bedroom/ computer artists you use to attempt to justify your viewpoint, they would be forced to perform live to earn a living if everyone stole their tracks, as you appear to advocate.

[shims]

I don't think downloading music for free will kill the music industry but it will damage it, beyond repair.

 

It's not just about the artists. It's about the record label too. Small, independent labels rely on people purchasing the material.

 

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!!

My bold. Agree with this except that it is already causing irreparable damage, many great labels have folded over the last five years.

[stereolab]

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

 

True - but giving the music away as a choice is different from someone downloading an entire back catalogue without permission.

[shims]

I know many artists who would prefer a million people steal their product to 5000 sales. Sensible business head says a million people would pay to see you on tour or buy non-downloadable merch.

 

Whether its right to download an artists music therefore should be an individual case by case, i don't think theres one answer fits all.

My bold. Sensible business head says that if a million people steal product, far less than that million will pay to see a tour.

 

However publicity is great for upcoming artists. The likelyhood of a million illegal downloads of an obscure artist just is not there. More likely, they would press maybe a thousand copies on cd or vinyl and end up with several thousand mp3 packs stolen as a result of someone deciding to share. This is the ugly reality of music-sharing: it does not discriminate between the needy and the wealthy.

[shims]

the only people affected are music bigwigs and naf popstars. artists should embrace free downloads. they don't need 'the industry' any more. however the industry has the money to lobby gvmt, and make you believe their tosh about downloads killing music. capitalism should force businesses to adapt business models, not use their fortunes to buy politicians.

My bold. Untrue; for reasons I've already stated above.

[stereolab]

I download everything solely because im tight

 

Hey - at least you admit it!

 

This makes more sense than some of the silly excuses earlier in the thread about how all musicians are millionaires making money from tours and TV deals.