It’s most certainly a rationalization, but I figure like 99% of the stuff I download I wouldn’t have bought anyways. Video games, music, movies, software, yep.
haha newbs and their TPB; Torrents and p2p crap.
I feel AWFUL about taking money from those greedy corporations that were strangling consumers for years with their inflated CD prices.
Fuck them.
Most of the smaller artists make their money touring etc as opposed to record sales.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
agreed. Not to mention some of us grew up with this being “ok” to do. Not saying that makes it right, just socially acceptable among certain age groups.
[/quote]
Right on the money, there.
Most people I know, born in the 80’s or later have been conditioned to accept downloads of morally justifiable. Why waste money, when you can get it for free? The MP3s are just going to go on the iPod anyway.
Sadly, somewhere on the net, you can find every T-Nation author’s products floating around.
I think that is just the society we live in now. Information is fucking sexy, share the wealth.
[quote]anthropocentric
Sadly, somewhere on the net, you can find every T-Nation author’s products floating around.
I think that is just the society we live in now. Information is fucking sexy, share the wealth.
[/quote]
don’t get me wrong, I’d pay for information from fellow trainers who aren’t making $10 million/yr regardless if I download or not. Seeing as most trainers are trying to make a living, I’d feel bad downloading for instance CT’s ebooks. But, downloading a movie with Mel Gibson in it, I’m sure he and everyone else in that movie are doing quite ok.
I don’t know any software developers that don’t download software. We still pay for software we like, and recommend our companies do so as well. I also don’t know any musicians that don’t download music, but those same people still spend 10x the amount on music that a regular person does. I download pretty much every movie released, yet I still go to the theater once a week, and have over 500 dvds/blu rays.
Personally, I think proceeds from quality data aren’t negatively effected by downloads, and they likely increase. People just get ripped off a lot less nowadays. I remember when you would hear one good track from an artist and buy the CD only to find out the rest was totally crap.
I like Microsoft’s approach these days. They know students are going to crack their software anyways, so they simply give it to them at a very low price or free. Those same students will then be used to using Microsoft’s products, and will therefore secure Microsoft’s future in the software industry.
Perhaps it’s immoral to artificially prevent the copying of that which can be easily copied, with no damage to the original, for ones own personal gains.
As a former musicican i feel bad for down loading music cause i know how much effort goes into making music and how little money you got previously. Now you get even less. But that’s life. Everything evolves and the survivors adapt. Smart musicians are now realising the money comes from touring not record sales so to a certian extent only REAL musicians with TALENT who are willing and capable of performing live, will make enough money to survive thus weeding out the posers who are only in it for the fame. Can’t perform live and rely on studio trickery to polish a turd, you won’t make any cash. Simple. So fuck off.
Record companies have laughed their fucking asses off for years at the profits they made off of artists and now that’s all drying up and every label is down sizing. Tough shit. With the ease and quality of recording at home, muso’s now no longer have to rely on over priced studio’s and producers to get their work out to the public. Distribution will remain viable but not production and manufacturing. So the art form is actually being put back into the hands of the artist where is should’ve been in the fucking first place!!
It also means more diverse music will hit the mainstream and offer alternatives to the public so they can make up their own mind as to what is good instead of some fat shit sitting in a tower, deciding when and what the public gets to hear.
I’m pretty sure parallels can be drawn to other industries such as film and porn aswell.
All in all i think it’s just the natural order of things. The only people you hear complaining about it are the people who are incapable of adapting.
Darwinism in full effect!
I think it is shit. People who pirate make up the lamest excuses for their behavior. Obviously, I’m not talking about the guy who only downloads a couple of things here and there, or the guy who ends up buying most of what they download. But the serial pirates, people who have no concept of the time and effort(not to mention money) it takes to produce the movies, music, books, art, software…etc. that they’ll gladly TAKE for seemingly no other reason than because it is easy to do so.
But then, as if that behavior wasn’t already shit. You then get the reaction from the industry which is even more shit. The RIAA’s shock and awe lawsuits, the MPAA’s restrictive copy protection schemes. The “industry” ends up being an even bigger asshole than the assholes stealing their shit.
It’s pretty clear they’re not helping, or getting any closer to a workable solution. Meanwhile, the actual producers of content(music, movies…etc.) are generally getting the shaft from everyone. The industry fucks them over, the consumers fuck them over. The whole thing is shit. But I do have some faith that, eventually, some equilibrium will emerge that satisfies both the consumers desire for entertainment, the artist/producer’s desire to eat and pay rent, with the reality that there will likely always be an ‘industry’ mediating that transaction.
[quote]stockzy wrote:
As a former musicican i feel bad for down loading music cause i know how much effort goes into making music and how little money you got previously. Now you get even less. But that’s life. Everything evolves and the survivors adapt. Smart musicians are now realising the money comes from touring not record sales so to a certian extent only REAL musicians with TALENT who are willing and capable of performing live, will make enough money to survive thus weeding out the posers who are only in it for the fame. Can’t perform live and rely on studio trickery to polish a turd, you won’t make any cash. Simple. So fuck off.
[/quote]
Britney Spears makes more money from a single show than your band probably ever did in their entire time together. Where does that fit into your “only REAL musicians with TALENT who are willing and capable of performing live will make money” belief?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
stockzy wrote:
As a former musicican i feel bad for down loading music cause i know how much effort goes into making music and how little money you got previously. Now you get even less. But that’s life. Everything evolves and the survivors adapt. Smart musicians are now realising the money comes from touring not record sales so to a certian extent only REAL musicians with TALENT who are willing and capable of performing live, will make enough money to survive thus weeding out the posers who are only in it for the fame. Can’t perform live and rely on studio trickery to polish a turd, you won’t make any cash. Simple. So fuck off.
Britney Spears makes more money from a single show than your band probably ever did in their entire time together. Where does that fit into your “only REAL musicians with TALENT who are willing and capable of performing live will make money” belief? [/quote]
Come on mate! We were MASSIVE!! Just kidding 
There will always be mega acts. 90% of all albums made, never made back the money it took to make them, according to the industry, and this was because of the rediculous price it took to make them. And the Britneys and Backstreets kept the label alive to be able to take a loss on the lesser known bands. The majority of those bands never made any money at all. They had fame and had a great ride but no money and no roylties. Even Lilly Allen (don’t start)when she was out here last said she was broke as all the money she has made so far goes back in to paying off what she owes.
For a new artist typically the split is 12% artist, 88% label, with the advance being paid out of the 12% you earn! So when you hear fifty cent got a million dollar advance from Dre he has to pay that shit back out of the 12% he earns on a album. And that million pays for the studio time ($1000 - $2000 a day) producers, sessions muso’s, food, travel, small dog with a long tongue that likes peanut butter!! Why do you think he sells sneakers? The highest ever controlling share of an album was set by sony in 1991 when Michael Jackson received 22% of retail or 1.90 per album! Think about it.
Now if your independant and own 100% of your music, record your music yourself, and only have a distributin deal (which is paying companies for their connection to put your album in stores) the amount of albums you need to sell to come out with a profit is ridiculously lower. But YOU need to promote your own shit via gigs (paid) myspace (free), facebook (free)…etc It’s getting back to bands creating a buzz about themselves off the back of their own hard work and being sound musicians instead of get label deal, get promoted, suck live.
And you may think the quality or standard of bedroom recordings is poor, the only person that can tell the difference between vocals recorded on a $12 000 mic and my $1000 mic is other music engineers, MAYBE. And i throw thaat maybe round loosely as we’ve done the A to B’s.
Your music is now compressed so hard and reduced to 128kb quality to be downloaded over the net and listened to on your ipod or car radio, that difference in quality is well and truly lost on the average punter.
By no means is the state of the industry a good thing at the moment, this is all gonna take a while, but i believe the artist is taking back their share and and will continue to do so and be agood thing. Record companies and cd’s will soon be a thing of the past. Albums will come on usb’s if they’re not completely downloaded.
Video killed the radio?
The computer and internet killed the record label.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
It’s pretty clear they’re not helping, or getting any closer to a workable solution. Meanwhile, the actual producers of content(music, movies…etc.) are generally getting the shaft from everyone. The industry fucks them over, the consumers fuck them over. The whole thing is shit. But I do have some faith that, eventually, some equilibrium will emerge that satisfies both the consumers desire for entertainment, the artist/producer’s desire to eat and pay rent, with the reality that there will likely always be an ‘industry’ mediating that transaction. [/quote]
I’m curious; if a lot of people go and download a band’s music, how does that fuck them over? I haven’t heard a coherent argument about how the consumer is damaging upcoming talent by downloading free music. Given that record sales and ticket sales tend to go up the more a song is downloaded, how is it a problem? How much of a record sale or iTunes download do you think a band gets?
You also do realize than many bands and movies deserve not to make money because they suck, right? As was mentioned, downloading music just tends to expose that to the consumer so they can only go and buy the one track that doesn’t suck on iTunes or Amazon.
Also, how many Spanish galleons are consumers boarding on the high seas? The word “pirate” doesn’t mean what commercial interests have tried to make you think it means. There isn’t even any theft involved in this discussion; it’s copyright infringement, which is a different issue.
I don’t believe those figures for a split second. A $15 cd costs about .25 cents to manufacture. They stamp them out like hot cakes. Rest assured they make Riches doing this.
Bitching about being half broke and always fighting to make a slight profit is a age old tactic to keep the underlings from thinking they are being used and abused.
[quote]stockzy wrote:
There will always be mega acts. 90% of all albums made, never made back the money it took to make them, according to the industry, and this was because of the rediculous price it took to make them. And the Britneys and Backstreets kept the label alive to be able to take a loss on the lesser known bands. The majority of those bands never made any money at all. They had fame and had a great ride but no money and no roylties. Even Lilly Allen (don’t start)when she was out here last said she was broke as all the money she has made so far goes back in to paying off what she owes.
For a new artist typically the split is 12% artist, 88% label, with the advance being paid out of the 12% you earn! So when you hear fifty cent got a million dollar advance from Dre he has to pay that shit back out of the 12% he earns on a album. And that million pays for the studio time ($1000 - $2000 a day) producers, sessions muso’s, food, travel, small dog with a long tongue that likes peanut butter!! Why do you think he sells sneakers? The highest ever controlling share of an album was set by sony in 1991 when Michael Jackson received 22% of retail or 1.90 per album! Think about it.
Now if your independant and own 100% of your music, record your music yourself, and only have a distributin deal (which is paying companies for their connection to put your album in stores) the amount of albums you need to sell to come out with a profit is ridiculously lower. But YOU need to promote your own shit via gigs (paid) myspace (free), facebook (free)…etc It’s getting back to bands creating a buzz about themselves off the back of their own hard work and being sound musicians instead of get label deal, get promoted, suck live.
And you may think the quality or standard of bedroom recordings is poor, the only person that can tell the difference between vocals recorded on a $12 000 mic and my $1000 mic is other music engineers, MAYBE. And i throw thaat maybe round loosely as we’ve done the A to B’s.
[/quote]
Some very good points in this post. I think many overrate the amount of money made by artists from the sale of their MUSIC. Like stockzy said, many artists either turn a very small profit from their record deals, or even end up owing the record label money. The main benefit you get with a record deal isn’t money from sales, is the promotion that comes with the backing of a major label and the advance money. Payola/sponsored airplay on radio, music videos, magazine ads, commercials etc. are all methods of promotion that artists could benefit from when joining a label. Most of the profits many artists gained after all of this (if the artists profited that is), came from touring. I’m sure there’s more to it, but I’m not a musician so I don’t know the details. There’s a really good article that was written by Steve Albini (known for producing In Utero by Nirvana) that really goes into the structure of record deals (old article):
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Changes in technology have lead to changes in the production, marketing and distrubution of music that are less favourable to the labels, but may prove to be much more lucrative to the artists. Artists can now produce their music at near top-tier qualities without expensive studios, and with the internet marketing can be done mcuh more cheaply. Part of this does come from putting up music online for free, either on youtube or myspace or whatever. New technology also means new streams of revenue, and now in addition to touring many artists get money from liscensing of music, endorsements, brand name products, ringtone sales, the forming of vanity labels, etc. Not that these methods didn’t exist before, but they are becoming more dominant now in the wake of decreasing sales of actual music. So record sales may be down which means LABELS are earning less, but bottom line profits for ARTISTS may well be on the rise. Not to mention the money saved by the consumer. So no I don’t think downloading music is all that immoral in general either.
Nor do I think illegal downloads are the direct culprit for record labels making less money. That has more to do with the iPod, the iTunes store, and the return of the industry to a SINGLES market rather than an ALBUMS market. Until around the 60s-70s, record sales were dominated by singles. Then all of a sudden the market shifted to albums, and record companies were able to profit much more, as albums cost more than singles. Now with avenues like iTunes, the singles market is back, which means the labels are going to have to give up the album money they grew to take for granted. Now I’m aware of the influence that file-sharing had on the labels agreeing to use a distributor like iTunes, but I still think it was inevitable with the rise of the mp3 and mp3 players anyway.
[quote]goochadamg wrote:
Perhaps it’s immoral to artificially prevent the copying of that which can be easily copied, with no damage to the original, for ones own personal gains.
[/quote]
This is the first response in favor of downloading that actually ANSWERED THE QUESTION - or at least addressed some part of it. The question isnt wheterh downloading is socially acceptable, the question isnt whether you CARE about whether or not downloading stuff is moral, the question is, other than “because i want to” do you have any moral justification for downloading stuff illegaly? (this puts aside Malone’s point that a lot fo artists, especially smaller ones, have benefitted from having their music downloaded. that’s a decision they made - to allow the downloading of their music - and one they have every right to make)
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
stockzy wrote:
There will always be mega acts. 90% of all albums made, never made back the money it took to make them, according to the industry, and this was because of the rediculous price it took to make them. And the Britneys and Backstreets kept the label alive to be able to take a loss on the lesser known bands. The majority of those bands never made any money at all. They had fame and had a great ride but no money and no roylties. Even Lilly Allen (don’t start)when she was out here last said she was broke as all the money she has made so far goes back in to paying off what she owes.
For a new artist typically the split is 12% artist, 88% label, with the advance being paid out of the 12% you earn! So when you hear fifty cent got a million dollar advance from Dre he has to pay that shit back out of the 12% he earns on a album. And that million pays for the studio time ($1000 - $2000 a day) producers, sessions muso’s, food, travel, small dog with a long tongue that likes peanut butter!! Why do you think he sells sneakers? The highest ever controlling share of an album was set by sony in 1991 when Michael Jackson received 22% of retail or 1.90 per album! Think about it.
Now if your independant and own 100% of your music, record your music yourself, and only have a distributin deal (which is paying companies for their connection to put your album in stores) the amount of albums you need to sell to come out with a profit is ridiculously lower. But YOU need to promote your own shit via gigs (paid) myspace (free), facebook (free)…etc It’s getting back to bands creating a buzz about themselves off the back of their own hard work and being sound musicians instead of get label deal, get promoted, suck live.
And you may think the quality or standard of bedroom recordings is poor, the only person that can tell the difference between vocals recorded on a $12 000 mic and my $1000 mic is other music engineers, MAYBE. And i throw thaat maybe round loosely as we’ve done the A to B’s.
Some very good points in this post. I think many overrate the amount of money made by artists from the sale of their MUSIC. Like stockzy said, many artists either turn a very small profit from their record deals, or even end up owing the record label money. The main benefit you get with a record deal isn’t money from sales, is the promotion that comes with the backing of a major label and the advance money. Payola/sponsored airplay on radio, music videos, magazine ads, commercials etc. are all methods of promotion that artists could benefit from when joining a label. Most of the profits many artists gained after all of this (if the artists profited that is), came from touring. I’m sure there’s more to it, but I’m not a musician so I don’t know the details. There’s a really good article that was written by Steve Albini (known for producing In Utero by Nirvana) that really goes into the structure of record deals (old article):
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Changes in technology have lead to changes in the production, marketing and distrubution of music that are less favourable to the labels, but may prove to be much more lucrative to the artists. Artists can now produce their music at near top-tier qualities without expensive studios, and with the internet marketing can be done mcuh more cheaply. Part of this does come from putting up music online for free, either on youtube or myspace or whatever. New technology also means new streams of revenue, and now in addition to touring many artists get money from liscensing of music, endorsements, brand name products, ringtone sales, the forming of vanity labels, etc. Not that these methods didn’t exist before, but they are becoming more dominant now in the wake of decreasing sales of actual music. So record sales may be down which means LABELS are earning less, but bottom line profits for ARTISTS may well be on the rise. Not to mention the money saved by the consumer. So no I don’t think downloading music is all that immoral in general either.
Nor do I think illegal downloads are the direct culprit for record labels making less money. That has more to do with the iPod, the iTunes store, and the return of the industry to a SINGLES market rather than an ALBUMS market. Until around the 60s-70s, record sales were dominated by singles. Then all of a sudden the market shifted to albums, and record companies were able to profit much more, as albums cost more than singles. Now with avenues like iTunes, the singles market is back, which means the labels are going to have to give up the album money they grew to take for granted. Now I’m aware of the influence that file-sharing had on the labels agreeing to use a distributor like iTunes, but I still think it was inevitable with the rise of the mp3 and mp3 players anyway. [/quote]
This.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Also, how many Spanish galleons are consumers boarding on the high seas? The word “pirate” doesn’t mean what commercial interests have tried to make you think it means. There isn’t even any theft involved in this discussion; it’s copyright infringement, which is a different issue.
[/quote]
I used the term pirate* because it is the term most commonly associated with a person who serially downloads copyright material, redistributes, and makes no attempt whatsoever to appropriate any compensation towards the producers of the content they freely consume. The semantics of this discussion are, in my opinion, on hold pending further reactions from the industry and lawmakers.
Thus far the the laws have been reactionary to the increased amount of illegal downloading and redistribution that the internet has enabled. The way things are going, it may not be long before music ‘piracy’ is treated as a far more serious infraction than today. I hope this does not happen, as I put in my post, I don’t think that the industry or the government has any idea what they are doing. But the ‘pirates’ don’t either.
*Main Entry: pirate
Function: verb
1: to commit piracy on
2: to take or appropriate by piracy: as a: to reproduce without authorization especially in infringement of copyright b: to lure away from another employer by offers of betterment
intransitive verb
: to commit or practice piracy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pirate[2]
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
I’m curious; if a lot of people go and download a band’s music, how does that fuck them over? I haven’t heard a coherent argument about how the consumer is damaging upcoming talent by downloading free music. Given that record sales and ticket sales tend to go up the more a song is downloaded, how is it a problem? How much of a record sale or iTunes download do you think a band gets?
[/quote]
I already said in my first post that I don’t think people who download and then buy(includes merch and shows) are the problem. Nor do I think that people who download sparingly are the problem either. They are also a minority. The majority, and the people I was referring to are the people who do it compulsively. Who are constantly running multiple torrents, for movies, music, books, games, software…etc. People whose default behavior is to download. People who consume products, enjoy them, talk about them, think about them, love them… but don’t pay for them.
This is a problem not just financially or economically, it is a problem culturally and mentally. When people start to feel as though they are entitled to another person’s creation, just because it is the internet, and this becomes default behavior. That is fucking content producers over. It’s creating a culture that says “If you’re a musician, fuck you for wanting to make a living doing what you’re good at and what I want from you, the only acceptable way for you to make money is playing live and selling t-shirts.” ignoring the fact that live shows are almost never profitable when factored against the costs of running a band.
I am slightly disturbed by the number of people who, while classifying the act of downloading as stealing, have no problem downloading from someone who is successful.
So stealing is okay, so long as it is from the rich?
Which is not to say that I have a problem with filesharing, but if you think it is stealing, why are only successful people subject?
[quote]Fiction wrote:
I am slightly disturbed by the number of people who, while classifying the act of downloading as stealing, have no problem downloading from someone who is successful.
So stealing is okay, so long as it is from the rich?
Which is not to say that I have a problem with filesharing, but if you think it is stealing, why are only successful people subject?[/quote]
There’s no stealing going on. Copyright infringement is the alleged crime here; there are some important differences. In theft, the original owner is deprived of property. In the case of commercial interests, this means they cannot sell the widget any more because they have no widget to sell. In the case of copyright infringement, the original owner is deprived of no goods or property. Nickelback can still sell another shitty album if some high school kid downloads the tracks; it wouldn’t stop you from paying Nickelback for a hot steaming pile of musical crap.
A vast majority of people who infringe copyright through filesharing are not going to purchase the lease to the music or software (and yes, it is a lease for most music and software. Read the terms of use on Microsoft Office some time) anyway, either due to lack of interest or funds. Rarely do you see a professional engineer download Autodesk software and then use it to make a living, or someone who actually likes a band not purchase an album or t-shirt or go to a concert.
*note, I’m not insulting you with the Nickleback thing, just seemed to flow