Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by emh:
HibbieBoy, I don't get what you're saying

So music is only good if the artist(s) have a recording contract?
[ May 20, 2003: Message edited by: emh ]

No, that's not what I am saying. Madonna, N'Synch and the Backstreet Boys have recording contracts and they are all pish.

[TheGreatPoo]

quote: Free music is available all over the internet, tons of lame assed musicians will give you their music for free, but it's crap and a waste of time and these people are just amatuers not worth wasting the bandwidth on.

I believe you did.  In this statement you basically critisize a great majority of the Indie band population.  While I agree that some of the bands suck, many of them have a fresh new sound and are actually very good.

Recording labels are the real evil here.  They not only take much deserved money from the artist, but they also dictate, by means of contract, what the artist can and can't do (that also means write and play).  Why else do you think so many of the main stream artists sound exactly the same?

Getting back to the argument, I agree with Macman: Crazy mofo.  Technology and the way people do things is changing.  I recently read a very good article in a Sound And Vision magazine that stated  (and I am paraphrasing), "The CD is a 20 year old format.  It's also more expensive than it has ever been before.  Therefore, with the internet and newer disc formats such as the DVD, the music industry must change their focus from fighting the piracy to giving people what they want so there is no need for piracy."  In other words, record companies and the RIAA need to find ways to harness the power and flexibility of the internet and use it to their advantage.  This is already being done with subscription services but these services are expensive and offer very little to the customer above what he or she could otherwise get for free by pirating.

[billy_gates]

I guess since everyone else is explaining I will explain

According to the Random House Webster College Dictionary, the second definition of "Steal" is as follows:
 

quote:to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc) without right or acknowledgement

I would call Music a form of ideas, words, and the artists definitely deserve credit for their music (most of them anyway).  Therefore to download (appropriate) ideas, words, and credit (music) is stealing.

I guss the ultimate reason I think, and I think everyone should think downloading illegal music is stealing because of the definition of stealing.

[Dei-Gratia]

A CD cost less than a penny to manufacture, and approximately $17.00 to purchase.  

For one, file sharing would be less necessary if CD's were fairly priced.  Aside from that, a musician's main income is derived from concerts and publicity.  CD's are only a small portion of an artist's paycheck (Their purpose is almost entirely promotional).

Musicians that are discovered through file-sharing networks have a greater potential to earn a fatter paycheck, because more people are likely to attend their concert.

Your average everyday Joe is not the only one benefiting from file-sharing.

[Fett101]

quote:Originally posted by Dei-Gratia:
A CD cost less than a penny to manufacture, and approximately $17.00 to purchase.

That's a poor excuse often used for any CD medium. (Video Games, Movies, Software)

You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...

That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Dei-Gratia:
A CD cost less than a penny to manufacture, and approximately $17.00 to purchase.  

For one, file sharing would be less necessary if CD's were fairly priced.  Aside from that, a musician's main income is derived from concerts and publicity.  CD's are only a small portion of an artist's paycheck (Their purpose is almost entirely promotional).

Musicians that are discovered through file-sharing networks have a greater potential to earn a fatter paycheck, because more people are likely to attend their concert.

Your average everyday Joe is not the only one benefiting from file-sharing.

If this is so why don't most musicicans allow content to be downloaded freely.  I mean, if you could make more money doing something, wouldn't you let people do it, so you could make more money.  The lack of a large group of people doing this would mean that your hypothesis is incorrect.

[Faust]

quote:That's a poor excuse often used for any CD medium. (Video Games, Movies, Software)

You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...

That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14

Bullshit.  CD's from "Nothing records" (Nine Inch Nails/Marilyn Manson) are released at prices _far_ below the $34.95 AUS charged for most CD's I get.  My local basement style music store sells these CD's for $25 each as opposed to the $35 for other labels.  And I have been told by the manager that they still make MORE profit on these CD's than they do on the $35 ones, due to the fact that they are priced reasonably.  These CD's have had the hell advertised out of them, they are packaged like all other CD's and produced to greater quality - they actually have lyrics printed in the front!  My local chain store of course marked Marilyn Mansons new CD up to $35 to "mantain price parity."

And the copying of music is not stealing - it is by definition the copying of music.  It can be said to be _analogous_ to stealing in that the artist makes no profit, but it can never _be_ stealing.  From now on I am only buying CD's from record labels that actually treat their customers well (eg Artemis / Nothing) and everything else will be copied.  And of course, I post money to the artist - far more than they would receive if I bought the CD.  The only person that gets shafted is the record company.  Considering that all the record companies do is advertise / produce CD's, and that both of these roles can now be performed by the internet/file sharing and cd burning respectively why do we need record companies anymore?  Either they start pricing CD's reasonably or I say we remove their un-necessary arses.

[Faust]

If CD's are sold at "correct" prices then why do record companies still relase them at drastically lower prices in other countries?  Wouldnt they make a loss if they were selling for less than they were "worth?"   :eek:

[NM]

I can copy a CD and give it to my friends.  Thats legal here in teh US.  So why can't I give my friend a mp3.  The grey area is the exact status of people you don't know.  BTW, I have bought more Cds in the post-Napster days than in teh pre-Napster days simply because I can demo the whole CD.  Whould you buy a DVD without watching the movie once? (Yeah, you'd pay a little, but $2 to Blockbuster is not $18 to Sony Music).

[Stryker]

If the artist and the employees at the record company can afford to support themselves and their families, then what the fuck does it matter? If everyone involved in the production only got $900 a month then I'd have a problem. but when they get into the tens and hundreds of thousands (possible millions), i dont see what the harm is. In my opinion, nobody really needs more than $5,000 a month. (unless you have a huge family) If you are demanding to be rich, i say fuck you and you deserve to have your work "stolen".

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
[QB]I guess since everyone else is explaining I will explain

According to the Random House Webster College Dictionary, the second definition of "Steal" is as follows:
 

I would call Music a form of ideas, words, and the artists definitely deserve credit for their music (most of them anyway).  Therefore to download (appropriate) ideas, words, and credit (music) is stealing.
QB]

Every song I have downloaded has awknowledged the artist. It's in the filename usually. As far as the right to do it, I pay for my internet connection. Music is usually licensed for home personal use. I only listen to it at home, I only get it at home (except when I buy the CD of a song I like... thanks to the p2p networks). I understand that copying it is a breach of the license, but it's not stealing. as I do have the right to do it, and it they are awknowledged. they only debatable thing here is the right, and that's a matter of opinion. It would depend on who you are copying it from I'd say.

[jtpenrod]

quote:Do you consider downloading music off the net or with apps such as Kazzaa to be "Sharing" or "Stealing."


I consider it Stealing.

As for myself, I really don't give a flying fuck either way. I haven't bought an RIAA CD since 2000, when I got stuck with a third GD CD that had just the one good song I heard on the radio with 10 other tracks that absolutely sucked. Furthermore, I have no intention of buying another unless the RIAA seriously cleans up its act.

Instead, I download from non-RIAA independents who actually want you to hear their work. If Hillary, Metallica, Madonna, and Brittney don't want me listening to their music, I'm perfectly willing to honour their request.    
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
      --Daffy Duck

[jtpenrod]

quote:No you don't, that's a bullshit statement. You just want to have free music and you can. Free music is available all over the internet, tons of lame assed musicians will give you their music for free, but it's crap and a waste of time and these people are just amatuers not worth wasting the bandwidth on.

Better not let Calum hear you say that     What an absolute crock of shit this is! Is there really anyone out there idiot enough to sincerely believe that the RIAA has a monopoly on talent?(!)     :eek:    (Please E-Mail me right away! I have a bridge that I've been trying to unload for a long time. Perhaps we can do a deal?      ) To be sure, you can find lots of "lame assed" musicians posting mp3's on the 'Net. And you can find plenty of "lame assed" musicians signed to labels whose garbage'll cost you some $20.00 at "Block Buster". After all, consider: "New Kids on the Block", "N'Sync", "Brittney Spears", and many, many more: YYYYEEEECCCCHHHH!!!!. After all, Brittney has just two assets to offer, and neither one of them have anything to do with music.        

OTOH, you can find some damn good music from acts that aren't RIAA. Electronica is one good example. It hasn't caught on here in the 'States; the RIAA hasn't noticed, and you won't find these European Electronica acts offered at the major chain outlets like "Block Buster". Not "mainstream" enough.        

There are other acts on the 'Net that are every bit as good as any RIAA-signed acts. And they really aren't all that difficult to find. Indeed: there are actually musicians out there who don't want to sign with a label. They'd prefer to keep creative control, do their own marketing which the 'Net and the mp3 have made possible, and take the lion's share of the proceeds from CD sales while selling for 1/2 to 1/4 what you'll pay for a RIAA CD.

That post, and another just like it, suggest they're coming from someone who's trying to sign with the RIAA. Let me remind all of you: I don't buy RIAA CDs, I don't download RIAA copyrighted music. I guess that means that I won't be listening to this musician's music if he does get signed.        
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
      --Daffy Duck

[ May 21, 2003: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by fett101:
You have to also pay a part of the music production, advertising, packaging, etc. etc...

That, and major retailers sell most CD's for $10-$14

That's a myth often used by publishers to justify extortionate prices. If the poor record labels are really being hit hard by all these outgoings then how are they making so much money?

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
If this is so why don't most musicicans allow content to be downloaded freely.  I mean, if you could make more money doing something, wouldn't you let people do it, so you could make more money.  The lack of a large group of people doing this would mean that your hypothesis is incorrect.

So then.... presumably Macs/Linux etc. are shit as "a large group of people" don't use them? And Windows must be fantastic, as most people use that.