Downloading

Mr ProgFreak wrote: I voted that, and I stand by it. I think that illegal downloading is no longer necessary today, at least in many countries there are enough legal alternatives at a decent price. You're right that not every illegal download is "killing music", but illegal downloading doesn't exactly help the legal download portals either.

That's true for sure, but I wouldn't say legal downloading sites are necessarily entitled to success. Or rather, that legal downloading sites are now a part of "music" that is being "killed" by illegal downloading. Objectively, I think legal sites are beside the matter.

I do believe that the term stealing is not questioned. If it were that simple, no discussion would be necessary.
The question is what do you do about it. ITunes has proven that people will use a legal service. The next step is how to further monetize the web access so as to draw more people into using services where the artists ( i don't care a fig about the major labels, they will screw their artists anyway) will get monies for their work.
And the subscription model may just be the solution. Better to get $20 each per month from 2 million people than $0. Again, the cable TV example proves the case.

This is a difficult poll because I think it ignores an important scenario which I was discussing with my oldest friend just last week.

Both of us were vinyl freaks, specifically prog vinyl freaks. Then along came the CD format, and both of us spent hard earned cash buying CDs which were duplicates of the ones that we already owned on vinyl.

Now that CDs appear to be rapidly overtaken by downloads, is it right to pay once again in a new format for something you have already paid for twice? (I know that CDs can be burned onto computers, but there are scenarios, for instance a new compilation LP & etc. where you wouldn't do that). Further to that, a straight download can be far better quality than the old original CD.

For the record, I download a great deal now (I think the sound quality on my MP3 player is simply stunning), even with the latest Marillion LP, which I downloaded from their website, and I have all their previous stuff (plus solo stuff) on CD. I always download legally, thus ensuring that the artist gets his/her/their rightful share of the fruit of their labours.

Generally, aside from the point I made above about stuff you have previously paid for, downloading from bit torrent sites, and their like, is stealing, and I can understand artists getting very frustrated.

However, equally, artists in some respects, and definitely governments such as mine in the UK, simply do not understand the internet which was MEANT and created for free traffic of information and other goods without censorship or heavy handed regulation. The traffic of such goods will never completely disappear, no matter how much people might rage against it.

What is clearly required is a business model from artists and record companies that uses the internet and downloads to the industries advantage. I'll think on that point - if I get it right, it could be worth a fortune!

debrewguy wrote: ITunes has proven that people will use a legal service. The next step is how to further monetize the web access so as to draw more people into using services where the artists ( i don't care a fig about the major labels, they will screw their artists anyway) will get monies for their work. And the subscription model may just be the solution.

as a former downloader, i can say that iTunes and others are taking the right steps. there's no problem with legal downloading, it's a little cheaper, artists get paid, everyones happy... the only problem is iTunes and others have limited selections whereas you find just about ANYTHING with torrents and such.

now im not condoning illegal downloading, im just saying iTunes and other legal download sites need to step up to compete with their "competition"

and maybe make it 49 cents per song as opposed to 99 cents, as i think that is what the average 3-7 minute song is worth, which would make most albums 5-6 bucks on iTunes

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: He won't receive that money He wouldn't receive it if you didn't buy it in the first place.   I want a ferrari, the store won't receive money if I don't buy it, so...Can I take it?

Nope, because then they couldn't sell the ferrari you took to someone else.

But you are using something YOU KNOW IT'S NOT YOUR'S in your benefit, if you want to listen that music, you have to pay the artist, so yes, you are depriving him of his proprty.

EvilGnome wrote: The main problem with focusing on that aspect of the record industry is that it is too often used as justification for piracy.

Thank you.

EvilGnome wrote: I think the more interesting points in the illegal downloading debate are that the biggest downloaders also tend to be the biggest buyers and that buying used offers almost as little benefit to the artist as downloading does.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. I think that some of the biggest buyers also use downloads (and before that, CDRs, and before that, cassettes) to try albums, or parts of them, before they buy. I remember such exchanges with cassette samplers in the mail on RMP. But I don't think the inverse is true; many of the biggest downloaders are not buying anything. I do know some of the bigger traders on Soulseek to be customers of our label, and for that I am glad. But there are a lot of folks along for the ride, or who don't comprehend the link between buying a CD and keeping the ecosystem going.

About the notion of "more music than ever being available", what you are seeing is not a result of downloading one way or the other, but actually the result of barriers of entry being lowered. So there are a lot of promising groups on MySpace who can put up a page and a few songs. Most of them will never get to the point of a polished CD without finding partners, and that becomes less likely if labels can't make a go of it. Without being able to sustain a catalog of such work it's hard to grow from potential to realization of that potential. It's the difference between some bright kids on MySpace doing avant-experimental work, and a group like Miriodor who have been able to build a body of work over 20 years through their association with Cuneiform. Like many groups, their best work did not come right away, and a supportive BUYING public was part of the PARTNERSHIP that made it possible.

We make decisions about future projects based on how others sell. So every person who takes a free ride on one of our releases makes another one by that artist or a related artist less likely.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: "I really don't care what the law says.  The law should conform to what is ethical, and there is no reason (beyond self-preservation) to obey an unethical law." So we should all decide which laws are ethical and which are not, and then only follow those we would agree with?

Yes, with the understanding that if you're caught breaking a law, however unethical, you'll be punished.

Or, if you're a more productive individual, you could campaign to have those laws revoked or get elected and help in that way.

Of course, ideally, all laws will be ethical.  Unfortunately, we don't have any perfect ethical theory yet, so that won't happen.

Sorry, but illegal downloads are just that ... illegal. I'm not judging anyone ... and neither do I get angry about the whole thing. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it myself, and I would encourage anyone I met to try legal alternatives instead.

And in confederate times, freeing someone else's slave was illegal.  Obviously that's a much more extreme example, but an immoral law is an immoral law, and there is no ethical reason why you ought to follow it.


Edited by Pnoom! - February 15 2009 at 15:35

^ and why is that so ethical compared to the other legal download opportunities?

Imagine you're a musician. You spend a lot of time of money recording something. Shouldn't it be your right to decide how you make this recording available to others? How is it immoral to forbid others to infringe your right?

^ "A Lockean defense of property, for example, might say that no, you shouldn't have that right, at least in the case of downloading, because of the principle of leaving "enough and as good" for others."

I hope you know that this essentially means that musicians can't make any money with their music, no matter how much time and money they spend on making it. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?