Steven Wilson begging in Facebook

Sumdeus wrote: Because if that was the case then every single musician out there right now would be broke and starving because people download everything.

And what makes you so sure that there aren't many musicians who do struggle to make ends meet?   That was the case even in the 70s because labels used every trick in the book not to pay them royalties.  Now they may have more independence when it comes to recording and releasing their work but less protection of IPR. 

In any case, the decision to download or not need not be argued so strenuously on moral grounds.   Do it at your risk, it's illegal, be prepared to cough up if you get caught.  Bonnek is right, the arguments you have placed here now to defend downloading won't wash in a court of law.  It's not for us to judge if Wilson needs the money.  Pay the price and if you cannot afford it, don't buy it.   Use youtube or other services like spotify if you need to stream the music.  There are even ecommerce services that allow you to download a single song or two, etc of an album, though I don't know if Wilson's albums would be available on it.


Edited by rogerthat - February 25 2013 at 01:35

Sumdeus wrote:   Really i just felt the need to say my piece in this thread because of all the one-sidedness to people's comments and specifically Dean's rude remarks.

My remarks are not rude. they are honest and sincere observations. You however are making pathetic and extremely silly excuses rather than being honest.

Sumdeus wrote: I don't really mind how you personally feel about downloading and people who downloading but saying something like "Some may even be stupid enough to argue this in public." is obviously rude. If you really think i am "making pathetic and extremely silly excuses" then I figure I'll just drop this then, this must be just a matter of huge differences in perspectives or a generation gap or something if you really read my last post and think i'm just making up excuses and not being honest with myself.

If you don't want to wear the Stupid Enough Hat then you should not have put it on. I made the remark before you chose to post, the choice was yours. I made the comment because I knew someone would. Well done - you won the Stupid Enough Hat lottery, wear it with pride.

Edited by Dean - February 25 2013 at 02:11

Sumdeus wrote: I never denied that the listener is profiting by illegal downloading, but they are profiting by enjoying music and in my opinion if someone is listening to your music and enjoying it or having whatever reaction to it you are already profiting as an artist and shouldn't be complaining. I also am not trying to say that we should say "to hell with musicians" and never pay them for anything.

Ah, but I am not so much interested in the profit of 'enjoyment'.   Wilson is very much in support of that as he has expressed the hope that "however you choose to hear our music, we hope you enjoy it".  I am talking of the $ profit to the listener for every album he chooses to 'acquire' in illegal download for 'free' and does not replace with a legitimate copy.   Is that not an excess of consumerism, a desire to raid a freebie or discount, at the end of the day?  So is it then not one sided to accuse the artist of being greedy and seeking to profit from art when that is what downloaders may be doing as well?

Sumdeus wrote: The reason I don't think there is an issue with illegal downloading is there will always be people who have the money to pay for the music, as is proven by things like bandcamp where people put up music with the option of free and fans still pay money. Hell, even i've made a little bit of money off bandcamp and i'm just some 18 year recording psych in his bedroom so I think that goes to show that people who can pay for music will always be there.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that the animosity you perceive in this thread is being expressed by people who always pay for the music?   If everybody said somebody would pay for the music and nobody did, why would anybody want to make a career in music? Is an artist supposed to a celibate aesthetic?  Going by your arguments, he'd have to be for why should he risk the lives of those dependent on him if he cannot seek any earnings from his life as a musician?  Unfortunately, many, including some that are my good friends, are happily married and need to run a household so they may not be so sympathetic to your arguments. 

Sumdeus wrote: As well, when I have money I buy music as well, and I do have a record collection. And if I had more money, I would buy tons of more records. But I don't. And if I never illegally downloaded music then my tastes would be incredibly limited and I wager the farthest my musical evolution would be at right now is deathcore/metalcore or some other silly thing like that.

Yes, this is the familiar argument proposed in favour of downloads.  And my question is, does it matter?  Does one really have to get one up on the others on music tastes?  What, are you afraid the music will just disappear and not be accessible to future generations?  It won't be if enough people bought it.     

Sumdeus wrote:  I am not trying to say there is no purpose to physical copies, just like most of you I will take a vinyl record over an mp3 download any day. But I simply do not see the need to act like illegal downloading is some horrific immoral crime. Your music is being spread which is in no way a bad thing. You get more fans. Maybe they like it enough that they go buy it. Maybe they like it so much they go buy ALL your stuff. Maybe they start going to your gig every time you come to town. I don't see why a musician would want to miss out on that just because of the minimal amount of money they will get from the record sales.

Here's the thing, the artist does not know there are all these fans until they buy them.   When Wilson brought Porcupine Tree to India a few years back, he was asked why had he taken so long and he pointed to the album sales of PT in say Canada vis a vis India.  Fair enough, I say.   I assume a concert ticket is going to cost money and they usually cost a lot more than an album, so the question of affordability gets a bit suspect here.   Is it a question of priorities, more than anything?  I know that I have to justify my music purchases, especially because they could so easily be substituted by downloads, but because I am not a tech freak and don't hog brands either, it gets tough for family to resist my one guilty pleasure.


You mentioned something about libraries before.  Well, actual video, music and book libraries would survive more if people used them as regularly as they once did instead of depending on illegal downloads.   A library subscription is nominal so, again, is it about affordability or is it because you feel foolish to buy a copy when you could just as easily get it for free off the net?  I also have to ask that if the artist is so abominably greedy and judgmental to ask people not to download, why do you listen to his works at all?  You ought to protest it by boycotting his concerts and organise signature campaigns around it. 

The sacred object : Peter Blegvad & Andy Partridge

Junges wrote: Shouldn't they have the right to listen music for free? Or to listen music at all?

Junges wrote: How much money do you think he makes just touring? God.. if it was an underground band it would be all right, but Steven Wilson...

My two cents....

When you can't afford to buy something/anything, I guess there are two general choices. 

a. I'll just steal it. 
b. I'll save up my dough for a while and when I can afford it, I'll buy it. 

Choice "b" is what was pretty common when I was a kid, silly us, we didn't sit around crafting sob stories about why we should get free music, man....We didn't whine about "those rich guys", who incidentally probably worked very hard for what they have.  We just had a little patience and eventually we managed to save up and buy some music, books, whatever....

There's no debate here, no grey area.  You can either steal someone's work, then try 20 different angles to justify your thievery, or, you save your money and purchase your stuff at the offered price.  One choice is right, one borders on a****le territory.  And if you think otherwise, then you'll be perfectly accepting and happy when someone steals something of value from you, from your home, your car,  your computer. If you agree you wouldn't mind being ripped off, then I can at least give you points for consistency.  Because, hey, that guy who took your Ipod  couldn't afford to buy one!  Should he be denied the ability to have one? 

Last there are TONS of free music choices out there people can stream with permission.  The idea that people who can't afford to buy music "will have no music to enjoy" is as daft as any comment I've read in this forum in years. 

Floydian42 wrote:   I know what you're probably thinking, that giddy feeling is the feeling all thieves have when they get away with stealing, and you're right. Every downloader knows in their hearts that they are stealing. It's just the way the culture is now.

Omg, this is such a sad statement and the general mentality overflows into other areas of society....that we are helpless to resist something we know in our hearts is wrong. 

Floydian, though i find your "perspective" to be seriously wrong, I sincerely appreciate your honesty to put it as bluntly as you did.  I understood your case even if we don't agree.


Edited by Finnforest - February 25 2013 at 10:39

lazland wrote: Barbu wrote: Downloaders beware : I am not in favour of downloading, but I am sorry, I regard this as being in the most ridiculous bad taste. Whatever else they are, rock artists are not victims in the same manner as the poor wretches who inhabited these shocking places. Also, although wrong, downloaders do not, I feel, warrant a gas chamber for their crimes. I am generally against censorship, but think it might be an idea if a friendly admin removed this

Calm down, Dude! This is called cynical exaggeration. Now that's a crime.