| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Is downloading music wrong? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2015 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | lumberpeg vegeplank [ Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Is downloading music wrong? |
I am having an ethical battle over this idea. I know it is illegal to download music. But laws and ethics are not the same thing in my opinion. I go back and forth on the issue, and I gotta tell ya, for the past three days, I am totally for it. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Especially because I just got the new advance Beck album and it rocks. Oh, Beck, if you hear me I apologize!!! I promise I'll buy it when it comes into stores! Or maybe I won't. I have been thinking about only downloading those albums that aren't on major labels. Only Indie labels will be bought. I also thought about allowing myself to download music if and only if I buy independant artists every chance I get. I am also a musical artist, and would I like it if people stole from me? Uh, it's hard for me to imagine that, though. I work 50 hours a week AND make music, so I don't really feel bad for those artists who are barely getting by. I do both and I'm fine. In fact, I would encourage peopel to steal my music, Abbie Hoffman style. If someone steals my vibes, let me give them my musical tunic as well. By musical tunic, I mean "container to keep vibes in." Man I am enjoying free music. A lot. Should I feel guilty about this? I assure you, Warner Bros., Clear Channel, Ticketmaster, et. al. do not feel bad about jacking up the price of music and giving the artist far less than they would get otherwise. I sure am enjoying this Tortoise album, though. If anyone disagrees with me, they'll have to be pretty convincing to make me baleete this Tortoise. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I could literally write pages and pages on this topic, but I won't. I'm having a similar internal debate over whether it's wrong to cancel my television service and just download the shows from the internets. But I digress. ..10 minutes later... Okay, I tried to write a very short reply and it didn't work at all. A half-page of text snuck out of my keyboard and promised to become an essay if I wasn't careful, so I'll scrap it for now. I do want to say one thing, though: downloading music is not illegal. Downloading music is only illegal if you don't have the consent of the copyright holder. Whether it is wrong or right is a different story altogether. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, since there are a lot of things I want to say on the topic, so keep it interesting, folks! Edit: I did want to mention that right now I'm listening to The Ataris' So Long, Astoria. This would be unremarkable except for the fact that I never would have discovered The Ataris so many years ago had it not been for the fact that they posted many of their songs for free download on the original MP3.com. They're not my favorite band, but I have spent more than a hundred dollars on their music, shows, and merchandise over the years, revenue they never would have had if not for music downloaded over the internet. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Sparkle [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Musicians spend months making an album and all that work and effort goes down the drain every time you illegaly download. So next time you double click on Limewire or Kazza think. Anyway there is always iTunes. |
|
| Author: | lumberpeg vegeplank [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Down the drain? the music goes into my ears, and I am enjoying its journey. They are just not profiting off of my wallet, which is empty anyway. Is money the purpose of music? I should say not. By the way, KaZaa is practically spyware. Avoid it. |
|
| Author: | ModestlyHotGirl [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I try to buy music whenever I can, mainly because the stuff I listen to is on small labels, like Vagrant, Hopeless, Fat etc. I believe in supporting my favourite musicians, that way I'll be able to continue going to shows for cheap. I do appreciate the free songs on DownloadPunk, though, as well as on Interpunk. It helps me decide whether to buy an album. I'm not opposed to downloading some music, though. |
|
| Author: | TheNintenGenius [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Downloading music is exactly how I expand my horizons. I can't just pick up an album that I've heard is good. I don't have the money for that, and if I don't like the album after I buy it, then I'm out of cash. With downloading, this changes the equation somewhat. If I like an album, I try to buy it, since obviously who wouldn't want to give money to something they enjoyed? It doesn't even necessarily matter if said artist is on a major label, because while I prefer the indies, there are major label artists I like, and by supporting those particular artists I'm trying to make the statement to the label that "you should have more artists like this." If I don't like something I've downloaded, on the other hand, it's deleted from my hard drive yet I still have money with which I can still support artists that I actually like. I don't know if I really made any point in my post or not, but that's just my immediate reactions. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree. And not to repeat my post from yesterday, but right now I'm listening to Bright Eyes (on my MP3 player, actually, but ripped from an album I own, i.e. which Conor Oberst profited from), and I never would have bought the three Bright Eyes albums I own were it not for KaZaA (I agree that KaZaA is full of spyware and cruft; I use eMule now). There are probably six or seven CDs in my collection that this is true of. |
|
| Author: | Tidus [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think not. If people decide to download music, it is the music industries fault. They should add something extra with the CD that would motivate you to buy it, and not download it off the net. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tidus wrote: I think not. If people decide to download music, it is the music industries fault. They should add something extra with the CD that would motivate you to buy it, and not download it off the net.
Wow, this is a really lame argument. "It's not my fault I download music, it's the industry's fault because they'll only sell me the music and not any extras." Yow. Now, the music industry has a lot of stupid practices, and has done pretty much everything in their ability to make the situation worse for themselves ("I know! Let's sue our biggest fans, plus some tween girls, old ladies, and dead people!"), but claiming that it's their fault because they haven't added "something extra" to the CDs is just inane. Has it occurred to you that anything "extra" they could add to the CDs would end up on the internet just as quickly as the songs themselves? Where's your incentive now? |
|
| Author: | lumberpeg vegeplank [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's just it! In"scent"ive! Jones, you've really got something there! You could make each CD smell the way that it sounds! Mp3's would seem dull by comparison! For instance, "The White Album" could have a faint odor of marshmellow fluff, Ween's "Chocolate and Cheese" could have either side of the album smelling like its namesake, and Michael Jackson's "Dangerous" could have some sort of dangerous odor, like the sulphur of flares burning. There is no way theat a computer can produce a smell, right? The plan would be perfect. The music industry is saved. Ahem. Excuse me. IJ and NintenGenius, very compelling arguments. I would like to hear some more arguments. Whilst I download the new Blonde Headhead. I know it's wrong, but I just can't stop myself. |
|
| Author: | No Toppings [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I dunno. Just because someone made a song, does not technically mean they own it. Ownership is permanent unless sold or given. But you cant own music. Music [should] belong to everyone. Everyone has a right to music. Whether they wrote it or somebody else, which also brings me to ownership, and how saying that you own something, even if you paid money for it, is not yours. No matter what you are talking about, it will change hands at some point. If you throw something in the trash, "Ownership" is passed to the dump. But still, the product itself is changing hands, then if the material is recycled, and given to the stores, the dump gives it to them. But the store dos'nt own it fore it will soongive it to you, the consumer. Whether it be stolen, or anything, given, bought..dosn't matter. If it changes hands, it will inevitably, change hands again. Thus the thought of "ownership" is an illusion, bringing me back on topic. Downloading music (for free) should be legal, the people who "own" the rights to the song will have to give it to someone else eventually, so why not give it to us?? |
|
| Author: | lumberpeg vegeplank [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, No Toppings, that's a good point. Well said. I would think most artists would want new fans. Any advertisment is good advertisement. It is important to be remembered, no? When you are on your death bed, will you hold grudges against those who wanted to remember a piece of you? Pieces of yourself that you felt good enough to show to other people? Isn't it strange to sell art, anyway? The best art speaks of matters so great that they are beyond our everyday comprehension, and how do you put a price on that? What a weird profession. It sure would be nice to do it full-time. |
|
| Author: | No Toppings [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ummm...but i dont know what you mean...hnice...what does that mean? |
|
| Author: | TheNintenGenius [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tidus wrote: I think not. If people decide to download music, it is the music industries fault. They should add something extra with the CD that would motivate you to buy it, and not download it off the net.
While I do believe that the music industry is somewhat at fault for the proliferation of illegal downloads, I think that extras has nothing to do with it. For one, as IJ has already remarked, the industry kind of brought this upon themselves by, instead of considering the possibilities the internet had to offer, instead stuck their collective head in the sand and tried to make the big bad evil internet go away. To me, more of a problem however, is in the very business practices of the major labels. More than ever, the industry is based on a boom or bust model of business. They grab a few bands that they think will be huge hits, hype the everloving crap out of their singles, and hope they'll be able to profit from their investment. As you would expect, this honestly doesn't work very well, and for every act they make money on, they lose money on about two or three, which results in cutting less lucrative bands from the label that could be seen as adding diversity and placing even more emphasis on their proposed hitmakers and so on and so forth. This has had a few effects. For one thing, bands with more cult following have been almost unilaterally shoved from the majors, including such artists as Ween and They Might Be Giants, which means less diversity of music available for mainstream consumption (after all, it can be difficult to find certain independant artists in certain stores). Second, staying power now means absolutely nothing. Rather than let artists try to grow and expand their sound, the majors work with them only as long as they'll churn out platinum records or singles, and as soon as they feel the money train is starting to slow down they completely ignore the artist and move to another one. Third, emphasis on albums has become laughably low. Why buy the latest Hot Band release when you just know that about 2/3rds of the album is going to be crap? iTunes has alleviated this somewhat by enabling you to download the specific songs from an album you want, but this is still not addressing the problem than an awful lot of recent bands signed to majors just don't know how to make a cohesive album. An awful lot of this also hinges on the major labels' insistence on working with payola (to wit, paying a radio station to play your songs), but that's an entirely different rant, though it shows that the reason you're hearing Boring Song X on the radio all the time isn't necessarily because people love hearing it. |
|
| Author: | No Toppings [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agreed. I mean, arent you tired of just seeing Green Day in the CD section of the best buy catalog? When there are so many other bands that the stores ignore like Blue Oyster Cult?? Dosnt that just annoy you? Thats anoyther reason, in a world like this where, after the inspiration is exausted, the artist is put on the back burner and sits to overcook, you can no longer find CDs for those people. So the people who do support those bands can share their CD with others who can not access the albums. |
|
| Author: | lumberpeg vegeplank [ Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Green Day winning a Grammy was funny to me. Green Day's golden years, ha ha ha. I wonder if Green Day saves their money or if they blow it all, MC Hammer Style. Maybe I should only download those artists who make over 100,000 dollars a year. Or those artists who make more than me. I like that idea; equal the playing field a little bit. Some Socialist ideas in there, I guess. It may be difficult to find out that financial information about musicians, however. "Excuse me, Mr. Tweedy, may I see those receipts?" Everyone's financial information should be in the paper, in my opinion. Oh, sorry, off-topic. I wonder how much Bjork makes in a year. I bet she saves her money. By the by, I fixed that typo. I hope that clears up my cluttered thoughts. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
When I do download music, it's usually just overseas crap, like The Pillows or theme songs from a show. I download stuff that I can't buy. If it's for sale here and it's cheap, I'll go get it, but I'm not gonna go and download all of Green Days songs. Waste of time. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramrod wrote: The Pillows
Um.. you mean this stuff? There's nothing you can't buy on the internet. |
|
| Author: | Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use this rule of thumb Buy records from lables like Epitaph and Phat wreck chords who sponcer independant bands (and don't make them sign nasty 7 record contracts) Download from Artista, WB, Jive and others I forgot that are nasty to their artists. |
|
| Author: | Tidus [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Umm.. I don't mean that they would add a extra song. Maybe a poster would come with it or something is what I mean. You misunderstood me! |
|
| Author: | soce,the elemental wizard [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ah nice.. as a recording artist myself, I am totally torn about this. Basically I feel that if people have the money and they want to support me then they should buy my stuff. The most frustrating thing is when I pour huge time and energy and do a really hot show and then afterwards this guy is like "soce that was totally awesome! you rule!" and I'm like "Thanx! Would you like to buy my album?" and he's like "Nah.. my friend already bought it, so I'll just burn a copy from him." Major downer
I'm still at the stage where I make most of my money from album and t-shirt sales so if people don't buy my album then I don't make any money and I could at some point just grow frustrated and simply give up and be like "ah peas, nobody cares." Also, I used to be like "Everyone, please download all my tracks for free!!!" But now that I have a bunch of my tracks up on iTunes, MusicMatch and a ton of other mp3 stores, I'd prefer that people use those.. I mean it's only $0.99 per track, so nobody can claim that they're too poor to download like one or two tracks... |
|
| Author: | TheNintenGenius [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
socetew wrote: I'm like "Thanx! Would you like to buy my album?" and he's like "Nah.. my friend already bought it, so I'll just burn a copy from him."
To me, that's a much bigger problem than downloading an album for free, since I'd estimate on average that people who get burned copies from friends are far less likely to buy the album themselves than people who download an album for free, and it's also a problem that the music industry has actually managed to exploit for their own gain (ever notice how some music companies like Sony also manufacture CD-Burners and CD-Rs?). |
|
| Author: | Lunar Jesty [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ever notice that nothing works except attacking the innocent? And even THAT barely works. You could scribble with a marker on those copy-protected disks, and shutting down P2P services, is, well, laughable. But if the RIAA arrests 10 year old girls, that's a big turn-off. Downloading music isn't something I support, but the RIAA needs to find a method to fix the problem without scare tactics. And there's always I-Tunes. |
|
| Author: | Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would buy from you soce because you need the money, I only download from bands that don't need money for some reason or another, ex: Led Zepplin is gone, The Who broke up, Metallica dosn't care. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote: Led Zepplin is gone, The Who broke up
Of course, those guys still depend on the royalties from that music (which is still sold in stores and online) in order to live. |
|
| Author: | Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most of The Who is dead anyway, and Led Zepplin made enough money in its hayday to make sure that many of their generations are rich. |
|
| Author: | No Toppings [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quite so, but i dont exactly have the money for the music. Those in postions such as mine, who can barely get their hands on a CD player, should not hafta buy music...meaning my cousin burns CDs for me. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No Toppings wrote: Those in postions such as mine, who can barely get their hands on a CD player, should not hafta buy music...
Um.. nobody's forcing you to buy, or even listen to music. You don't "hafta" spend a cent on blissful silence. |
|
| Author: | No Toppings [ Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes, but i reallly like music...i dont even have a friggin radio |
|
| Author: | PizzaTrophy [ Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Technically, yes it is wrong, everyone knows it, but we still do it. Free generally equals good, so people are gonna say, there's nothing wrong with free music, it's like listening to the radio, but you get to choose the songs. I finally caught up with the times and got myself an MP3 player, so it's not wrong anymore! And if it was soooo evily wrong, why would they have made MP3 players, CD burners, CD-R's and put their songs on the internet. Does this mean that all the above items should also be illegal and taken off the shelves? Could there potentially be a black market for this kind of equipment. Some bands are smart, and have copy protection on their albums. If the bands wanted to prevent this loss of cash, they should copy protect their albums. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|