Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Downloading
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDownloading

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 18>
Poll Question: Is it right to download music for free without the artist's consent?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
13 [22.41%]
24 [41.38%]
4 [6.90%]
17 [29.31%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 01:53
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ nothing really. You were saying that you found laws which protect legal downloads (with a fee involved) unethical


No I wasn't.

Quote - people who try to circumvent the fees get prosecuted. This implies that you think that it's unethical to charge money for music downloads.


Even if I did think what you said above, it wouldn't imply that.



This is nit-picking ... and with each post it usually gets worse. Nevertheless I'll say that much: It doesn't matter much what you "would imply". If you say that you find the laws against illegal downloading unethical, that automatically implies that you demand that all the artists must offer free downloads. It's simply what removing those laws would lead to.

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:



Quote 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.


But people did donate.  That's the thing.  If I could do that for all artists I like, I would spread around my money a lot more.  For most, I would download it for free, and then make a donation based on how much I liked it.


Then I think you are a very generous person.Smile
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 02:18
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

There's really only one way the problem would ever be solved - disable the whole idea of accessing files of any size off the internet! Big smile  Think about it: if there was no program code that let you save files off the net onto the PC, would you be able to download?  Obviously not. 
Going as far disabling accessing files of any size actually disables the whole internet. However, if you mean just saving files, whatever is created by a computer can be broken by one - whatever mechanism you create to stop a physical download some one will crack that.
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 02:35
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

There's really only one way the problem would ever be solved - disable the whole idea of accessing files of any size off the internet! Big smile  Think about it: if there was no program code that let you save files off the net onto the PC, would you be able to download?  Obviously not. 
Going as far disabling accessing files of any size actually disables the whole internet. However, if you mean just saving files, whatever is created by a computer can be broken by one - whatever mechanism you create to stop a physical download some one will crack that.


Yeah, I mean it should not be possible to save files onto the hard disk at all.  However, even that facility is required in business and used extensively, so it would be hard to make a music-specific barrier.  It could be a possible solution though because easily available legal downloads would dissuade some but not all.


Edited by rogerthat - February 16 2009 at 02:36
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 02:45
You have to transfer information from the internet to your PC to be able to see web-pages - the saving of that information is a process that runs on your PC - if it wasn't built in to your browser, then someone would create a routine to do it and there is nothing anyone could do to stop that. Torrent software does not download and save whole files - it is done in small packets no bigger than a typical web page and not always from the same source. So it is easy to see that the mechanism that allows you to see web-pages or to access streamed content is the same mechanism that could be used by software similar to torrents in transfering large files from one PC to another over the Internet.

Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 02:47
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 02:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

You have to transfer information from the internet to your PC to be able to see web-pages - the saving of that information is a process that runs on your PC - if it wasn't built in to your browser, then someone would create a routine to do it and there is nothing anyone could do to stop that. Torrent software does not download and save whole files - it is done in small packets no bigger than a typical web page and not always from the same source. So it is easy to see that the mechanism that allows you to see web-pages or to access streamed content is the same mechanism that could be used by software similar to torrents in transfering large files from one PC to another over the Internet.


In short, the "illegal" economy of internet will always exist and nothing can be done about it.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 03:05
In essence, yes. The killer blow was cheap mass storage - once people had the ability to store large files Pandora's box was open. But to paraphrase the NRA - PCs don't download illegally, people download illegally - just because you have the tools does not make it legal to use them.

Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 03:06
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 03:25
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

In essence, yes. The killer blow was cheap mass storage - once people had the ability to store large files Pandora's box was open. But to paraphrase the NRA - PCs don't download illegally, people download illegally - just because you have the tools does not make it legal to use them.


Yes, but it will happen in the absence of killer penalties and their being seen to be enforced.  The most important difference in the internet world is not people's morality - which is the same as in any other situation - but that the internet is so difficult to administer.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 04:17
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Yes, but it will happen in the absence of killer penalties and their being seen to be enforced.  The most important difference in the internet world is not people's morality - which is the same as in any other situation - but that the internet is so difficult to administer.
I'm not so sure that is true - I think in the Real World most people do not steal because they know it is wrong, not because it is inherantly more difficult to do than simply pressing "save" or through fear of getting caught or because they believe that the concept of ownership (or whatever) is unethical. The reason for this is nothing to do with morality - it is simple self-preservation - if stealing is a valid means of ownership, then it would be impossible to own anything (including the shirt on your back).
 
The internet is very easy to administer, however at this moment in time it is unethical to do it - when that breaks down then no PC connected to the Internet would be safe or immune from external audit. It really is that simple, push the System too far and the System will turn and bite your ass.
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 04:30
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I'm not so sure that is true - I think in the Real World most people do not steal because they know it is wrong, not because it is inherantly more difficult to do than simply pressing "save" or through fear of getting caught or because they believe that the concept of ownership (or whatever) is unethical. The reason for this is nothing to do with morality - it is simple self-preservation - if stealing is a valid means of ownership, then it would be impossible to own anything (including the shirt on your back).
 
The internet is very easy to administer, however at this moment in time it is unethical to do it - when that breaks down then no PC connected to the Internet would be safe or immune from external audit. It really is that simple, push the System too far and the System will turn and bite your ass.


But most people know it's wrong to steal because they have been conditioned to accept it - by parents and society, and by seeing thieves being made an example of.  That doesn't seem happen in the internet world because lot of parents themselves download and they are not seen to get caught and punished.
Back to Top
Anthe View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2008
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 48
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 04:32

I have been following this discussion with much interest and think it is a very important one. It also made me think what my opinion was, but to be honest I had never really thought about it and do not have so much of an opinion. So I did not vote yet.

With that in mind this morning, I found a blogpost of Seth Godin. I had never heard of him, but what he said was very interesting. His overall point (as I understood it) was that it needs a new paradigm to get solved and that was something, I think, I can agree with.

Here is the blogpost: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/02/music-vs-the-music-industry.html     

And here is the interview where he is reffering to:  http://www.rollogrady.com/rollo-grady-interview-seth-godin/

 

Some parts:

“The music industry is really focused on the 'industry' part and not so much on the 'music' part. This is the greatest moment in the history of music if your dream is to distribute as much music as possible to as many people as possible, or if your goal is to make it as easy as possible to become heard as a musician. There's never been a time like this before. So if your focus is on music, it's great. If your focus is on the industry part and the limos, the advances, the lawyers, polycarbonate and vinyl, it's horrible. The shift that is happening right now is that the people who insist on keeping the world as it was are going to get more and more frustrated until they lose their jobs. People who want to invent a whole new set of rules, a new paradigm, can't believe their good fortune and how lucky they are that the people in the industry aren't noticing an opportunity”.

“Digital is about to surpass the CD, and once it starts to happen it's going to happen faster and faster and faster. The more interesting thing to me is who is going to control the playlist. If there is an infinite amount of music available - and I would argue that as soon as the amount of music available exceeds the amount of time you have in your life, that's infinite - somebody will have the leverageable spot of deciding what to listen to next. And it's unclear whether someone will charge to tell me that or will pay to tell me that. It's still up for grabs in every one of these vertical silos. Who are the tastemakers and how do these ideas spread? The analogy I like to give is if you're an author and Oprah Winfrey calls, you don't say, ‘How much are you going to pay me to go on your show and give away all the ideas in my book?’ In fact, if you could you would pay to be on Oprah.”

“It's really fine and good to have a moral or ethical conversation. I think it's more productive to have a practical conversation about power. The fact is that the industry will never have enough power to keep someone from pirating something because they think they're going to end up in jail. The numbers that would end up in jail are too big. They're probably not going to have enough power to get people not to copy something because they think it will get them in trouble with their mom. After all, it's an industry built on getting in trouble with your mom”.

Back to Top
Rocktopus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 05:00
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:


 
[quote]You have the right to question the legality or morality of a law but as long as it isn't revoked, you have to obey it.
 
Legally, yes.  Ethically, no.  Just stating the same thing over and over in bigger font isn't going to convince me to accept your point.


Ha-ha!

We all know the basic right from wrong: Do not kill, steal, torture etc, but there's plenty of laws I don't know in detail (like downloading). Ideally a person should follow his or her own set of ethics. I think an old, out of print album that you only can download or buy used for an absurd amount of money is ok to download. I don't know what the laws in my country says about it, and I'm not interested in finding out. Saying that is illegal just because it is, goes against my own thinking of right and wrong. Buying this album second hand will only give some random guy an absurd amount of money, not the artist.

And I think just saying; stealing is stealing to a young guy with almost no money, and nowhere to buy albums if he did have some, like that guy from from Georgia (who's post seems to have been removed), is arrogant and very easy for someone well off, living in the western world, with a well paid job. (I'm not thinking about you, Ivan)




Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 05:05
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

But most people know it's wrong to steal because they have been conditioned to accept it - by parents and society, and by seeing thieves being made an example of.  That doesn't seem happen in the internet world because lot of parents themselves download and they are not seen to get caught and punished.
That is partly true - however, what put that conditioning in place? What made society decide that stealing is wrong? In the situations where that conditioning hasn't worked and where thieves have stolen and gotten away with it can you steal from that thief? Does he leave his front-door unlocked? No - he also knows stealing is wrong and will put everything he knows into preventing his house being burgled. The same is true on the Internet - there is information on your PC that villains want and they are continually trying to steal it - even people who download protect themselves from being robbed.


Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 05:08
What?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 05:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

In essence, yes. The killer blow was cheap mass storage - once people had the ability to store large files Pandora's box was open. But to paraphrase the NRA - PCs don't download illegally, people download illegally - just because you have the tools does not make it legal to use them.

If you're going to paraphrase the NRA, I'm going to have to shoot you. Tongue
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 06:39
Indeed, I also hope that we'll see a change towards free downloads ... another factor that could help is that today the cost of recording/producing music is much lower than it was 20 years ago. With the current technology it's possible that artists record and produce their music on their own - which means that they're also free to decide how to distribute it.

BTW: I fully agree on what Seth Godin said about the industry, and "vinyl and polycarbonate" in particular. The actual music is what's most important, not the medium. Sure, booklet and cover art are nice, but ultimately they're just marketing tools. Today you can go to the artist's website or wikipedia page ... all the important information is there. No need for booklets. I know why some people say that they don't like downloads because they need to have something tangible, but IMO that is a mind set which will slowly become extinct. I'll say it again: The actual music is that which really matters ... and by purchasing mp3s I get it all. 
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 07:45
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

That is partly true - however, what put that conditioning in place? What made society decide that stealing is wrong? In the situations where that conditioning hasn't worked and where thieves have stolen and gotten away with it can you steal from that thief? Does he leave his front-door unlocked? No - he also knows stealing is wrong and will put everything he knows into preventing his house being burgled. The same is true on the Internet - there is information on your PC that villains want and they are continually trying to steal it - even people who download protect themselves from being robbed.



Yes, I agree with that last sentence, well, going by that, the onus then is on the industry to protect itself from illegal downloads, no?  Wonder what would have happened if CDs had not been invented and we had been 'stuck' with vinyl.  Sure, there are vinyl rips available but they are much harder to come by and it's obviously not as easy to convert as a CD. Anyone with a good media player can convert audio CDs to mp3, on the other hand. 

Another - and more realistic - option to explore is the multimedia CD. I have two Iron Maiden CDs - Killers and SIT - and both are in multimedia format.  You can listen to it on a CD player or use Quicktime on your PC to view videos. But you can't rip it.  Maybe there is some sophisticated software to achieve that too, but not that I know of. You can still record the CD song by song onto wav files using a recorder but the quality would be lost then.  As Henry Plainview said earlier, the difference in sound quality between mp3 and an original CD is not so drastic that people would rather pay for the original.  If the mp3 was too poor quality to listen to, people would have to buy a CD instead.  Doing all this may not be good for Apple Corp. but eh, we are talking of the music industry!   I remember before VCDs arrived, there was a pirated casette library market thriving but it didn't hurt the movie industry so badly because pirated casettes were horrible to watch.  You either bought the original casette or waited to see it on satellite TV. But the quality of pirated movie files improved dramatically when we moved to VCDs and since then, the grey market has become more of a concern for the movie industry.

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 09:11
Being that you have your own set of rules that should apply to all the world because you believe are ethical, there's no need to keep arguing, the legisllator and the judges (who know about laws and ethics), have determined that there's a felony considered Industrial Theft )Being theft a synonymopus of stealing), but you seem to think you know more than them.
 
Only will touch one point
 
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

I care about the ethics that are inherent in a social system composed of rational organisms.  These apply universally to all rational creatures that exist within society.
 
For God's saker, how do you know what the rational organisms consider ethical?
 
I consider downloading unethical, the society through the lawws created by the authorities democratically elected have decided it's unethical, the principle that the owner  has the right to obtain a benefit of his creation, etc, but you say that for you it's not.
 
Then it's not the general ethics, it's your own concept of ethincs, so if the society admits that, the same society should allow a fundamentalist kill a doctor who practices abortions because abortion is unethical for them, and the world would be chaotic.
 

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:


We all know the basic right from wrong: Do not kill, steal, torture etc, but there's plenty of laws I don't know in detail (like downloading).
 
 
The igniorance of the law is not an excuse. this is not in a country law, it's a general rule in all the covilized world.
 
 
Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

Ideally a person should follow his or her own set of ethics.
 
 
And what if my ethics are in contradiction with your ethics? Am I allowed to take the law by my hands?
 
That's why the Governments have created a set of ethics called laws that are mandatory for everybody.
 

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

 
think an old, out of print album that you only can download or buy used for an absurd amount of money is ok to download. I don't know what the laws in my country says about it, and I'm not interested in finding out. Saying that is illegal just because it is, goes against my own thinking of right and wrong. Buying this album second hand will only give some random guy an absurd amount of money, not the artist.
 
 
That person alrady paid the artist and he's entitled to do with his property (The plastic vehicle in which the music is recorded), anything he wants, unless it's limited, and selling it is not limited.

Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

 
And I think just saying; stealing is stealing to a young guy with almost no money, and nowhere to buy albums if he did have some, like that guy from from Georgia (who's post seems to have been removed), is arrogant and very easy for someone well off, living in the western world, with a well paid job. (I'm not thinking about you, Ivan)
 
 
I told it before in the Collaborators section, I'm not remotely rich, i work for myself in a country where 50% of the lawyers drive cabs, I earn enough to hardly live and pay the mortgage of my 120 square meters apartment, but not having money is no excuse to steal.
 
Hey, I want a Porsche, it's ridiculous expensive, so am I allowed to take it? I also been a student and only had albums when I could pay them, music is not a vital need, you can technically live without it, so if you don't have money, you can't pay for a new CD, sad but truth.
 
But still you have otther options, second hand albums, legal downloading which is cheap, etc.
 
Iván






Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 16 2009 at 09:18
            
Back to Top
Vibrationbaby View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 09:26
I haven`t read down the thread because I don`t have that much time to spend on the site due to business obligations but here`s my two cents, and I`ve stated this before on similar threads.

      GO OUT AND BUY THE RECORDS. IF THEY`RE NOT AVAILABLE THEN THEY`RE NOT AVAILABLE.

                          We`re talking about people`s livelihoods here. Plain and simple, downloading is theft.

Back to Top
Rocktopus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 09:34
^Jeez Ivan, I even wrote that I wasn't thinking about you (the well off, well paid part).

I still think its arrogant for the more fortunate of us, to simply state; stealing is stealing and that's that, because I don't think the world is as simple. And I think its ok to download a ripped version of an out of print album no matter what you, or the law says. Its what I consider to be common sense. I don't think its ok or common sense to just steal a very expensive car just because you want it.

And I know the person with the rare album is entitled to do what he wants with his property because he or she owns it blabla..., I never said he or she couldn't.




Edited by Rocktopus - February 16 2009 at 09:52
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Back to Top
angelmk View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 22 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 1955
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 10:37
ok guys, i agree it's fair to support the artist by  buying the original. But what should be done in cases where to say for the peolple who don't have enough money to buy album, should one stop listening to music, becouse is not ethical to download one for free?  ex. wages in average in macedonia are to say about 250 euros , and one album is to say about 20 euros , so one simply cannot afford one . 
i know you will tear me appart with my statement , but i had to say, although at first i said to myself not to involve in this discussion , 
it is neverending.
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 16 2009 at 11:23
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

I care about the ethics that are inherent in a social system composed of rational organisms.  These apply universally to all rational creatures that exist within society.
 
For God's saker, how do you know what the rational organisms consider ethical?


I don't care what rational creatures consider ethical.  I care what is ethical.   Humans don't decide what's ethical, they can only uncover the nature of ethics, which is inherent in our status as rational members of society.

Quote I consider downloading unethical


Good for you.  What individuals consider unethical really doesn't concern me, though.

Quote the society through the lawws created by the authorities democratically elected have decided it's unethical


Laws can't "decide" that something is unethical.  They can be based on the principle that something is unethical and should thus be outlawed.  Laws can only represent (or go against) ethics, they can't set them.

Under your view of ethics, you have no way to condemn the Nazis for their treatment of Jews, or slaveholders for their treatment of blacks, since, after all, those were the societal norms of what ethics was, and therefore they were ethical.

Quote the principle that the owner  has the right to obtain a benefit of his creation, etc, but you say that for you it's not.


I have not said this.  Please stop putting words in my mouth.
 
Quote Then it's not the general ethics, it's your own concept of ethics


Once again, if you think people decide what is ethical, you would have been a fierce proponent of the Nazis' treatment of Jews in the Holocaust.

Ethics are objective and exist regardless of what the "general concensus" is.  Yes, I have my own concept of ethics, but I have it because I believe it accurately reflects the objective nature of ethics.

Quote so if the society admits that, the same society should allow a fundamentalist kill a doctor who practices abortions because abortion is unethical for them, and the world would be chaotic.


Nope, one of the fundamental aspects that can make society function is a justice system that replaces vigilante justice (whether or not this is required for society or not is a different matter, though I would say it is), therefore it is objectively unethical for the anti-abortion person (let's not cloud the discussion with incriminating terms like fundamentalist) to kill a doctor who practices abortion.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 18>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.