an end to the candy store insight for UK.

this is not a good thing, File sharing allows people to hear music which they would otherwise never be able to do so. It allows poorer people to enjoy music as much as the rich. Furthermore it allows more obscure bands to be heard and enjoyed.

Bornlivedie UK wrote: This is so stupid. If I didn't download music I would only beable to buy one album a month or something (Im poor ). Ontop of that the local music shops DO NOT stock prog. And if you ask them to order it for you it takes months and good luck EVER getting obscure music....

Not a good excuse for illegal downloading. I can't afford a Porsche but I don't go out and steal one.

If this thread continues in this direction it will be closed.

Don't the artists only get a small percentage of the money anyway? Id rather pay them all the money directly.

If it wasn't for downloading I would probably have never discovered prog or anything. Id still be stuck listening to Nirvana thinking that was the most that music could be.

laplace wrote: The relevant phrase here is "The UK government", so expect to see slightly more stringent restrictions on the internet debut in 2017 by which time there'll likely be a better medium through which to steal. =P Oh, now that I've read the article, the truth is much scarier. I hope it saves your precious Pendragon but it's a terrible decision.

the taking of the intellectual property as it were isn't the issue it seems here
the problem is that there are many many many many different angles to both sides yet each only sees the other side as having one, and there will be no ground gained from that

There is no grey area here at all - if you take something that doesn't belong to you, without permission, it is illegal and immoral, it doesn't matter if it is electronic or not.  If I use someones picture without permission, I'd be breaking the law as well.

I won't bother trying to rationalize. There is a grey area because an artist can be benefited by the download of an album. You may not notice it with the zip files of artist's entire discographies available with an easy click, but it has happened. You may argue that in reality, most people don't repurchase what they download and they may not even bother to buy further music from a band they've downloaded an album from, but make no mistake, the artist can easily lose overall profits if people don't download an album or two by them.

If you want to turn down profit for moral virtue, go right ahead. In fact, it would be noble and commendable of you, because it is certainly not in the capitalist tradition. But legal arguments have less sure footing; laws can be changed, but dictating morality is much harder.


Edited by stonebeard - February 15 2008 at 13:35

I'd say the bigger problem in the industry is charging an arm and a leg for 40 minutes of music
that's a different discussion however

Well, working at a Prog Rock record label you wouldn't see too many 40 minute albums  but most popular rock music albums fall at about this point, some even under (System of a Downs "Mezmerize" was a mere 36 minutes)