Piracy... *issue*

thellama73 wrote: I have never understood this line of logic. I have talked to tons of people who say "Yeah, well I can't afford cds so I download them." I can't afford a Ferrari but that doesn't mean it's ok to take one. If you can't afford something, just don't buy it. It's easy. I also get "Records companies are greedy so it's ok to steal from them" a lot. This is absurd. Obviously people are willing to buy albums at the price the record company sets, or they would be forced to lower it or go out of business. If your boss told you he was willing to pay a lot more for you than your current sallery, would you decline? It's not being greedy, it's being smart.

People are only willing to pay this amount of money because theres no alternitive, until downloading came along. I dont advocate illegal piracy but the record companies are all dealing with this matter the wrong way, they should drop their prices on albums to make it more attractive to buy rather than DL or offer the album up for DL at a low cost. They'll only beat piracy byoffering a reasonable alternative, not by charging astronomical prices for albums and treating all fans as criminals.

There's an alternative. Don't buy albums, or only buy the ones that are on sale. Two of the major record stores near me regularly mark down albums to under ten dollars, and not just bargain bin garbage that no one would want. It's not as if records are a necessity in the same way that food and clothing are.

Opinions on the greed or otherwise of record companies are perfectly legitimate. They do not however alter the basis fact that illegal downloading is jsut that, illegal, i.e. a breach of the law.

well I'll throw my two cents into the ring....


it's purely a monetary issue not a moral one...


what is the difference between yesterday....  a friend having a cool ass Yes cassette and making a copy for you... and you passing it off to friends... I've done... everyone has done it, and today uploading an album and sending off to a friend..

however unlike the old days.... your cassette copy may run to ...what a couple of hundred people..... today that copy could reach millions ...

the act of copying is a personal moral choice... the real issue is the financial impact on the artists.  Albums have been copied and passed on for as long as most of us have been around... technology today now makes it a financial problem for artists and the record companies.  I can understand how some people have no qualms taking money out of the pocket of those who have more money than they'll ever need. A hard hearted person might argue that it is a rough world... we as consumers get ripped off everyday.... karma as they say... is a bitch..

MikeEnRegalia wrote: But even then some people *claim* to only download for evaluation, but if you searched their harddisk you would find thousands of files which they simply keep without buying the CD.

True, i don't see the harm in that.The illegal download/upload deed has been done by that time. As long as these files are not played they are just cluttering up the hard disk. If they are played frequently then of course the user doesn't want to pay for the music and falls in category A) that i mentioned previously.


Edited by Dirk - June 04 2006 at 11:35

prog-chick wrote: oh come on.........rose tinted glasses there..........a cassette was only good for one or two copies, not even tens let alone hundreds or millions. exactly why this has become a economic issue.... the morals are inconsquential.  Albums have been copied for years before digital came around.  It is neither right or wrong... it has always happened and will always happen.  Don't think that some people being preachy about it is going to change ONE mind.  I buy all my albums... some of them after hearing 'samples' or yes...even copies of the album.  What is my personal choice.... is mine.. and it's not my place to tell others how to live their personal lives.  Which leaves us back... to economics... yes it's also a financial issue. Most of the bands we talk about here are so not in the "too much money" category of super rich. Most are self published artists or are on small labels that once the chips are down are not much more than cottage industries. I agree.... but we're talking real money here. Those groups aren't potentially selling millions of albums thus what are they losing... very little in sales to what....very few people.  That's why many of these self published release their albums for free.... it's great publicity and gets the music out there.... honestly... how many people throw money down on an album of some group that you have NEVER heard of... for music that you've never heard.  The people this hurts the most... are the ones who have the least to lose... those who are rich anyway and are losing millions of album sales.  I'm not condoning it..... but the 'other side' as it were.... has valid complaints... The effect of downloading IS REAL and it is INCREDIBLY DAMAGING. of course it does...

^ I fully agree with your Napster statement! But it can only work if all albums are available on Napster, which isn't yet so. And even then some people would still say that it's too expensive ... some people want everything for free.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 04 2006 at 12:07

^ You already said that in your post, I just didn't mention it again.

I think it´s also related to salaries. The salaries here in Brazil are very low compared to USA or Europe. A poor person would rather buy food for a week and download his favourite CD than buy a CD and go hungry for a week.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ It doesn't matter how many CDs you bought - if you dowload one without paying that's just as illegal as if you don't legally own any CDs.

I meant, of course, the negative view of my personality as a result of being labled a criminal. I don't care to figs for a lot of laws in our society, a lot of them passed for the benefit of the wealthy. I am a criminal in the sense that I have broken the law, however I don't consider myself a criminal in the sense that I am a nasty person who's only out for their own interests.

Dirk wrote: Speaking strictly legally you are quite right of course. Morally i think it makes quite a difference if someone  downloads music because A) he doesn't want to pay for the music or B) he wants to have a clue what he is buying before doing so.

Couldn't agree more.

thellama73 wrote: There's an alternative. Don't buy albums, or only buy the ones that are on sale. Two of the major record stores near me regularly mark down albums to under ten dollars, and not just bargain bin garbage that no one would want. It's not as if records are a necessity in the same way that food and clothing are.

I have such a store quite close to me and whenever they have an album there at a reasonable price I will buy it. However, it is often the case that they either don't have a particular album I'm looking for or if they do it is extortionately priced, it makes logical sense then to download the album listen to it to see if you like it and buy a hard copy at the next possible oppurtunity. As for the last comment, I'd rather go nude that not listen to music.




Edited by Forgotten Son - June 04 2006 at 14:36