Is Downloading Music Wrong? (1 Viewer)

[TJS0110]

Is downloading music wrong to you? Do you think that it should be considered a crime? Support your answer.

 

[FallingPianos]

Is downloading music wrong to you? Do you think that it should be considered a crime? Support your answer.

I donno, i guess it depends on how you go about it. I dont see a problem with downloading a few songs from an artist, or a lot of songs from one artist if you later buy something from them.

the problem is when you download entire albums and never support the artists you like.

 

[Jay R]

Of course not! Downloading is great, it allows you to store music on digital devices, swap it around devices, arrange it as you wish, and carry a huge amount of it in single unit. That is assuming of course you are paying for the music you download, it is a product that has to be purchased after all. Filesharing on the other hand, that's theft, as is CD, DVD and videogame piracy.

 

[LiberalNation]

Why buy something if you can get it for free and not get into any trouble. I don't have a problem with downloading or file sharing.

 

[jallman]

Now I download music from filesharing programs from time to time...like when I am learning about a new artist and considering purchasing their album. Downloading music just to store a huge collection and never pay for it...thats wrong.

 

[Peralin]

No way. Even downloading songs for free is okay in my mind. The problem is that some people download entire albums and burn them onto cds, which is basically stealing. But I download songs to test them out, to make sure that I like the cd before I spend my money on it. However, some people cross the line by burning entire albums without paying for them, and that's why it's illegal to download for free.

 

[jamesrage]

Is downloading music wrong to you?

No.

Do you think that it should be considered a crime?

No

Support your answer.

Turn on your local music radio station and listen to it all day and all week.There is a reason why I only listen to music radio once in a while.It is because they play the same damn **** over and over and over again,I almost want to yell and bitch slap the **** out of these morons who request these songs that have been played a million times on the radio already.The letters R-E-C-O-R-D on a little button on a sterao spell record,You put a ****en tape in and when your favorite song comes up push the ****en record button.


If these music companies were smart they would monitor Peer to peer networks and use them to monitor the popularity of certian songs and make music accordingly based on what people are downloading.

Sending out some spoiled little rich crybabies to bitch about people doing what is basicly the same as pushing the record button on a stereo does nothing for thier cause,do you feel sorry for people basicly doing this?":2bigcry: I could have bought my own private island this year,but now I will have to settle for my own branch davidian compound and a huge anti missle bunker thats been renovated into a mansion thanks to people downloading my music that has been played over and over again on the radio :2bigcry: ".

 

[LeftyHenry]

No as it is inevitable in the electronic information age.

 

[TJS0110]

As I see it as long as a person is downloading music for their own enjoyment, and not to copy onto a disk and sell, it strikes me as 100% fine. Now, when you get into the issue of downloading music purely to copy and sell it, then that is wrong and should be illegal. When you download someone’s music and simply listen to it, you gain interest (if the music warrants that interest). If you gain interest you may decide that you want to go see a concert, they gain money of that (they being the artists). Now, after you go to that concert you may say "I want a T-shirt; they gain money of licensing that T-shirt for sales. Overall even if you download a $14 CD of the internet the artist will gain money in the end if their music is appealing to the masses. I feel that free sharing of music simply allows our society to explore areas of musical interest that they would not normally. Say someone is somewhat interested in classical, however they don't want to pay for a CD. If they simply download a couple classical songs and decide they like it....Hey! More cultured society. That’s how I feel anyway.

 

[Jay R]

All interesting points, but they all kind of hinge on the assumption of inherent 'goodness' in people, that they will only download odds and ends and will still go out and buy hardcopy. In my experience that just isn't the case, people be stealin' s***, vast quantities of it in most cases. Somone I know downloads practically everything he wants, and then tries to justify it by buying a bit of vinyl now and then. Apparently because he occasionally pays for music in an antique medium it entitles him to everything else for free. :roll:

Music is as cheap as it can reasonably be in any case, plus you have radio and the TV stations playing constantly, trying to argue that you're being hard done by record companies is a bit lame. Film even more so. There's so much hollywood rubbish in the multiplexes that downloading rare or cult films is just doing them more harm than good, forget 'word-of-mouth', little indie films need to make money to encourage the scenes creativity, otherwise their producers just end up getting picked up by the studios to turn out more hollywood crap. Games deserve it to a certain extent, they are massively overpriced for what they are, especially considering the declining quality in favour of flashy looks, no wonder they're making more than the film industry, they've certainly gone the same way.

 

[zymurgy]

Yes, downloading something that was designed to be bought is wrong.

But, considering the amount of special laws given to the music and movie industry...and the price fixing that obviously exists, I couldn't care less. They brought it on themselves.

It would be like still charging high prices for bottled water after we invent something like they have on Star Trek where anything can be materialized out of thin air.

 

[Jay R]

A valid point galen, and considering the difficulties in launching legal proceedings against filesharers pehaps efforts should be made to encourage more people towards that attitude, seeing as litigation and enforcement have been rendered obsolete by technology.

It would be like still charging high prices for bottled water after we invent something like they have on Star Trek where anything can be materialized out of thin air.

Umm.. I hate to be the one breaking this to you zymurgy but the radio isn't a magic box that makes music, it sure as hell doesn't materialize out of thin air. People are employed in an industry that produces it, and not just rich people either, there's people employed to clean their houses and wash all their cars. Mexicans perhaps? Not to mention studio engineers, video crews, personal assistants, practically everyone who works for MTV across continents. Most of who probably aren't Mexicans.

Just because you can rip off people's work doesn't mean you should, or that it's fine to do so.

 

[zymurgy]

Umm.. I hate to be the one breaking this to you zymurgy but the radio isn't a magic box that makes music, it sure as hell doesn't materialize out of thin air. People are employed in an industry that produces it, and not just rich people either, there's people employed to clean their houses and wash all their cars. Mexicans perhaps? Not to mention studio engineers, video crews, personal assistants, practically everyone who works for MTV across continents. Most of who probably aren't Mexicans.


Just because you can rip off people's work doesn't mean you should, or that it's fine to do so.

This isn't about the radio.

The costs of creating canned media has been reduced by nearly 2000% over the last 30 years yet the price to consumers has outperformed inflation.

Basically, they brought it upon themselves.

If I find a way to create an exact replica of a vehicle for pennies, will car manufactured still charge $20,000 for it? Sure, at first they will try to use legisltation to protect themselves but eventually they will have to face reality.

 

[TJS0110]

All of you have made very valid points. I would just like to say that in my personal opinion if certain artists can ok the downloading of their music and not be driven into poverty, then how can other artists say that they are being so hurt? I just don't understand how it is possible for artists who make millions of dollars to complain about their "massive" losses at the hands of piraters. I just don't see the validity in that statement; please correct me if I'm wrong I'm posting this to learn. I would feel sorrier for the producers and other staff working to sell the artists music, than I would for the actual musicians. Call it a justification if you must, but I just don't see how a musician can really find any fault in their fans desire to learn more about them through a download. I know that there are many out there who simply download massive amounts of music, but do you really think they would actually go and buy that music if it were not freely available to them? If they are downloading it and would never have gone out and purchased the album, then how are they really causing the artist to lose money? They wouldn't have bought the record in the first place, so the musician doesn't get their money either way. At least with the download the person gains some interest and might go see a show or two. Just my opinion, feel free to rip into me.oke

 

[Schweddy]

I feel that one doesn't keep a stack of money on the table in the open without it being taken.

If artists wanted to keep their music from being spread around they should encrypt it and not release it on CD.

I am allowed by law to copy a CD for my friends. Just because I have 128,394 friends doens't make me the bad guy.

 

[RightinNYC]

Someone Who Isnt Me thinks that it shouldnt stop with music. Hell, every single movie/tv show on earth is available in torrent format, just waiting to be downloaded. If someone were to try to profit off of it, thats one thing, but downloading a movie that you were never going to pay 10.75 to go see? have at it.

 

[Stinger]

Is downloading music wrong to you? Do you think that it should be considered a crime? Support your answer.

If it is a copywrited recording of course it is. Just as priating software is wrong and illegal.

If you do it your are a thief and there is no way to get around it.

 

[Stinger]

I am allowed by law to copy a CD for my friends.

For YOUR usage only. You cannot copy and give it away or especially use it in any commerical endeavor.

 

[TJS0110]

OK, you have answered whether it is legal. That really wasn't the question, it's whether you think it SHOULD be illegal.

 

[Stinger]

OK, you have answered whether it is legal. That really wasn't the question, it's whether you think it SHOULD be illegal.

Absolutely if it is without the permission of the artist/owner.

If you wrote a book about your city, invested your own money in it's production and printing, put them up for sell and then found out that someone bought a copy and was just running off copies and giving them away, you would file a cease and desist and demand they pay you for the unauthorized distribution of your intellectual property.

Have you ever study the founding of our country and the discussions over intellectual property and why one of the key portions of the constituion has to do with protecting such property?

 

[Stinger]

Here's some of my examples. I downloaded a few songs by Miranda Lambert. There's no way in hell I'm gonna buy her CD, I liked the one song I saw on CMT, and I wanted to check out if anything else she did was good. Would it be better that I don't listen to her at all?
And there are a few hundred artists that I feel the same way about. Locksley for one, never gonna buy an album of theirs cause I have no interest in listening to a Locksley album, I just wanted that song from the Starz commercial!

s

I was at Wal-Mart the other day. They had grapes on sale, no way I wanted to buy a whole bunch so I just ate a few. Then I went to the beer cooler, no way I was going to buy a whole 6 pack so I just drank one. And I'd never tried a new brand they had so I drank one of them too.

Was it legal? Was it right? If you want to just "check-out" there are ways to do so, Barnes & Noble has databases with clips, her own website might. But not paying for copywrited material is illegal and theft. The last band I played in we used some midi backing tracks that WE created. They still came under the BMI and ASCAP requirements that the venue pay for thier usage, just as if a bar has an FM radio playing and ASCAP or BMI walks in and they can't show they paid a license fee they can be sued.

 

[zymurgy]

s

I was at Wal-Mart the other day. They had grapes on sale, no way I wanted to buy a whole bunch so I just ate a few. Then I went to the beer cooler, no way I was going to buy a whole 6 pack so I just drank one. And I'd never tried a new brand they had so I drank one of them too.

Was it legal? Was it right? If you want to just "check-out" there are ways to do so, Barnes & Noble has databases with clips, her own website might. But not paying for copywrited material is illegal and theft. The last band I played in we used some midi backing tracks that WE created. They still came under the BMI and ASCAP requirements that the venue pay for thier usage, just as if a bar has an FM radio playing and ASCAP or BMI walks in and they can't show they paid a license fee they can be sued.

Although I agree that IP needs protection comparing physical theft with digital piracy doesn't "feel" the same to anybody and your argument will fail to convince..

At the store you actually physically reduced the inventory without paying for it. A direct loss was the result. For digital piracy the loss is only theoretical. ~ Maybe they would of bought it if that was the only way.

 

[MSgt]

Yes.

That's why I only do it sometimes. However, it would be very unfair not to download it, because I also download television shows and movies. I like to think of myself as an equal opportunists.

 

[Stinger]

Although I agree that IP needs protection comparing physical theft with digital piracy doesn't "feel" the same to anybody and your argument will fail to convince..

It is theft. Our founding fathers made it a principle of this country preciesly because it wasn't so in Europe and it helped our country become the creator and inventor in was and is.

"
Furthermore Christopher Kelty points out in A primer in Modern Intellectual Property Law , that although the United States constitution does not specify anywhere that humans have a right to tangible property (ex: land), the constitution does express that congress be given a special right concerning "Authors and Inventors". Specifically stated in Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States of America: The Congress shall have Power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (http://www.usconstitution.net)."

At the store you actually physically reduced the inventory without paying for it. A direct loss was the result. For digital piracy the loss is only theoretical. ~ Maybe they would of bought it if that was the only way.

You are not buying the plastic that the CD is produced on nor the paper the book is printed on. You can buy blank paper and blank CD's. Your are buying the content and the loss is meausrable. It is not theoritical it is a lost sale.

 

[Stinger]

Yes.

That's why I only do it sometimes. However, it would be very unfair not to download it, because I also download television shows and movies. I like to think of myself as an equal opportunists.

And unless those downloads are expressly permited by the copywrite holder that is illegal. Just like postings here which must abide by far-use law.