Downloading

^ nothing really. You were saying that you found laws which protect legal downloads (with a fee involved) unethical - people who try to circumvent the fees get prosecuted. This implies that you think that it's unethical to charge money for music downloads. I know the Radiohead experiment (I purchased the big vinyl box) ... essentially that boils down to free downloads together with the possibility of making a donation. I'm not saying that I dislike the idea ... I just think that most people would simply not donate anything.


My solution for the whole problem would be to get the big record companies to introduce more flexible price models - with a worldwide distribution and the price models adjusted to the typical income level of each country. For example, I don't mind if people from Brazil download illegally, considering that CDs cost like 10 times more than they cost in the US or in Germany, compared to the typical income. Give people the opportunity to pay a reasonable amount of money for the music ... eMusic.com is a good start, but they need to be more flexible than the "pay the same amount of credits for each track" routine.

Laplace and Tony just won this thread.  It should probably end now.

Edited by Pnoom! - February 15 2009 at 16:56

Pnoom! wrote: Nope, because then they couldn't sell the ferrari you took to someone else.   Then if you go to a doctor and refuse to pay, it should be OK, because you're depriving the doctor of nothing, he can still have other clients.....It's absurd I might be infringing on his property rights but I am not depriving him of anything.   The musician has provided a service, and if you want to enjoy it, you must pay, if not, it's stealing. If you hire a service, and dion't pay, you are stealing even when you are not depriving the doctor or lawyer of nothing, the only conditions to consider it a crime are: Animus Delicti: You know it's illegal and still do it Animus Lucrandi: You got a benefit for you or a third person Downloading music has the two conditions. 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. And who decides if it's ethical.....You?   There is a reason to obey the law, the government democratically elected by the majority, has released it, and if you want to be part of a democratic system, you must obey every law even if you don't like it. But it does have a market value.  And even if it doesn't, your use of the word invaluable is misleading (either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know), because when people say something is invaluable, they tend to mean that it's so valuable that you can't express it quantitatively.   I'm talking in legal terms, a right that can't be quantified exactly is called invaluable in legal terms,    When you copyright a song, it has no market value, because you do it before it's released when can't be valued, the music acquires value if it's bought by the people. Iván

I believe Folly just entirely won by this "If you want to make analogies, please make ones that make sense." alone, let alone the other stuff he said.

The problem with analogies is they only work up to initial the point of comparison, then they collapse - defeating an analogy is not winning the initial point, it is simply defeating an analogy ... and at some point every analogy can be defeated. A closer analogy (though still not an exact match - since an exact match analogy is no longer an analogy) would be the computer software industry. Try arguing with Microsoft or Apple lawyers about the unethical legality of software.

Sckxyss wrote: Option 2. If the only way you can get an album is by forking out $40+ on ebay or Gemm, the artist isn't getting anything for it either way, so there's no point IMO (unless you want the hard copy). Otherwise, I think it's important that the artists get paid for what they're doing.

Sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well. 

I don't like MP3 or computer based music, I prefer hard copies of everything, this problem I have never had as I never have feel attracted to music stored in a hard drive.

Henry Plainview wrote: The T wrote: So yes, you're breaking a law... Did anyone disagree with that? But on the other hand, I'm sure that you don't think someone who watches a live video of a band on Youtube should be fined $125,000, even though that is technically just as illegal...

I think you are all just going around in circles. Those who steal won't stop, and haven't stopped because it is illegal. Those who don't steal have no effect or influence on those who do.
Ranting about the artist losing money is hypocritical unless you question the current business model used by record labels, especially the major ones. There is  a solid case to be made that many acts are able to make a living touring BECAUSE their music has been spread through P2Ps. Not all, but some. And those that can, are also able to finance their recordings without corporate interference as to what should be put out.
This is not to say that some acts have not been negatively impacted. But, and this is a bit BUT ... there is rarely a mention of the increased competition for the consumer's dollar. To the ancient media like TV & movies, add DVDs, Video Games (which are in the midst of a boom period), the Web itself, along with products such as IPods, IPhones, and cellphones.
THEN, add to the mix that sales were artificially boosted for a 40 year period by the explosion in the late 60s - the emphasis on LPs, the arrival of big money in the industry; then new formats - cassettes & CDs that had people buying Led Zep IV for the 2nd & 3rd time (assuming you hadn't bought it a few times before as your vinyl wore out), followed by an series of major "new" & massively popular genres such as Hair Metal , Grunge, Pop Punk, Boy Bands etc that eventually led to a music biz that acted like every other boom market known to man.
Meaning - when the boom goes bust, everyone involved looks for the boogeyman to blame.
Reality - music sales are back to normal, where they were until the mid 60s.  A very few mega stars, some 15 minute Fads, a number of mid sized acts that have built a lasting career, a lot of smaller acts that make a living, and more that never quite get past recording a few songs, and playing a few gigs.

Answer - forget the arguement if it's stealing or not, moral or not. It's not going away. Take some time to thik of a realistic option where the artist CAN get paid. Maybe not as much as Pearl Jam did in the 90s, or that Tull did in the 70s. But more than Hank Garland, Hubert Sumlin or others did in the pre-historic daysof the music industry.
Subscription services. No DRM. You own the music. Burn it, upload it to your IPod, stream it on your computer, to your Stereo, delete it when you want more free space on your PC, download it just for tonight's party, order it up on a whim, whatever, wherever.
It's happening in China, in Denmark, in Europe, and rumours abound that Steve Jobs is still pressing and will get this to happen in America within a year or two. It works for Cable TV, it works for Internet access, for phone services and the like. People paying less, but more people paying. And people will pay for a secure, handy, and readily accessible and simple way to do so. Whywait two days for a torrent download ? Why expose your PC to viruses, malware & Spyware through LimeWire and the like ? Heck even  Amazon.com has started having daily sales on MP3 albums. Check it out. $9.99 for an album. Uh Uh. Today & today only $3.99. Or $1.99. How can they make money ? VOLUME !!!!!!!


And that folks is what you should be fighting for. A way to give people a legal & reasonably priced choice, a way to get artists a cut of the action that they aren't getting today

P.S. a cursory search of the web will net you articles as to how record labels tried to decrease royalty rates on CD sales back in the mid 80s (new media not included in old contracts) - an album's price goes up by $8-10, the artist's share goes from 74 cents to 81 cents. And the labels did the same thing for MP3 downloads.