Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[avello500]

i dont think its stealing to copy music with permision. p2p, radio and tape, mic and speaker, listening and remembering, you name it, its just copying.
if you make a high quality copy of a copyrighted material and charge tickets to listen/view then your stealing.
if you rent something and copy it without there consent, stealing.
a freind buys a cd and says hey you want a copy? sharing.
labels hurt musicians.
most musicuans get dick from record labels. most of the smarter and wealthier musicians handled everything themselves, they also reaped 100% of the total net profits. signed bands will get at the most 5% of what the record companies tell them.  oh out of that 5% the band has to cover management and other services so they may get about 2-3% out of the five.
for every buck made on the whole ball of shit the band may get as little as $.15. whereas the record company make about $.55. the record companies claim that .30 goes to shipping and distrubution, .40 goes to advertising. what they say never adds up. and they really dont share the books freely or otherwise.the amount of money to be sliced is so badly shaded and distorted by the record companies that there is a sub-profession of accounts specifically to discern royalty amounts. this profession is growing every year in size.

the ability to demo a cd allows me to choose what is worth spending money on, in turn i dont just give up on buying cd's all together.

i do know that almost every musician would love to be able to walk past any window and hear there music . the fact that i can hear music that has made/changed history is incredible. you can find work that has been lost for generations, things that can change a persons life.
this inturn helps the art to live.
this would not be possible without sharing.

the free market system runs on the principle of supply and demand. since they have opened asian and eastern markets the formulas of s&d have been tipped in the direction that record companies dont like. thats whats with all the bitchin.
if they lowered the prices to what people pay for bootlegs then people would purchase authentic versions. most people realize they are buying bootlegs. thats why it is usually cheaper.
in places that are more expensive, maybe authentic  versions cant be bought, the record companies need to build there distrobution networks to accomadate these markets then pirating would be irrelavent.  (shit i spell like a fuking 4year old lol)

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


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.

What I said had nothing to do with how popular a band or artists was or how good they are.  I was trying to somehow explain to you that all record companies and most artists are after one thing, money.  They will do anything to get money.  So, according to you they can make more money if people download their music.  If this is true, why don't they allow people to download their music.  Its like someone saying I can make even more money than I already make, but whatever, I'll waste a bunch of money and time in lawsuits to try and stop it anyway.  What I said had nothing to do with popularity or quality.  People want money.  If they could truly make more money by letting people download their music, they would "let" people download their music.  They wouldn't try to fight it.

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by avello500:
i dont think its stealing to copy music with permision. p2p, radio and tape, mic and speaker, listening and remembering, you name it, its just copying.
if you make a high quality copy of a copyrighted material and charge tickets to listen/view then your stealing.
if you rent something and copy it without there consent, stealing.
a freind buys a cd and says hey you want a copy? sharing.
labels hurt musicians.
most musicuans get dick from record labels. most of the smarter and wealthier musicians handled everything themselves, they also reaped 100% of the total net profits. signed bands will get at the most 5% of what the record companies tell them.  oh out of that 5% the band has to cover management and other services so they may get about 2-3% out of the five.
for every buck made on the whole ball of shit the band may get as little as $.15. whereas the record company make about $.55. the record companies claim that .30 goes to shipping and distrubution, .40 goes to advertising. what they say never adds up. and they really dont share the books freely or otherwise.the amount of money to be sliced is so badly shaded and distorted by the record companies that there is a sub-profession of accounts specifically to discern royalty amounts. this profession is growing every year in size.

the ability to demo a cd allows me to choose what is worth spending money on, in turn i dont just give up on buying cd's all together.

i do know that almost every musician would love to be able to walk past any window and hear there music . the fact that i can hear music that has made/changed history is incredible. you can find work that has been lost for generations, things that can change a persons life.
this inturn helps the art to live.
this would not be possible without sharing.

the free market system runs on the principle of supply and demand. since they have opened asian and eastern markets the formulas of s&d have been tipped in the direction that record companies dont like. thats whats with all the bitchin.
if they lowered the prices to what people pay for bootlegs then people would purchase authentic versions. most people realize they are buying bootlegs. thats why it is usually cheaper.
in places that are more expensive, maybe authentic  versions cant be bought, the record companies need to build there distrobution networks to accomadate these markets then pirating would be irrelavent.  (shit i spell like a fuking 4year old lol)

So your saying that because people are doing good things with the music and good things will come of it that it is no longer stealing...
Just because it is used for a good cause does not take away the fact that it is theft.
Best anology I could think of:
Robbin Hood STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robbin Hood stole stuff for a good purpose, but we didn't relabel it to take the word stole out.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:


What I said had nothing to do with how popular a band or artists was or how good they are.  I was trying to somehow explain to you that all record companies and most artists are after one thing, money.  They will do anything to get money.  So, according to you they can make more money if people download their music.  If this is true, why don't they allow people to download their music.  Its like someone saying I can make even more money than I already make, but whatever, I'll waste a bunch of money and time in lawsuits to try and stop it anyway.  What I said had nothing to do with popularity or quality.  People want money.  If they could truly make more money by letting people download their music, they would "let" people download their music.  They wouldn't try to fight it.

No, I'm not saying that. You suggested that artists making their work available for free can't be a good idea as a large number of people aren't doing it already. You were suggesting that if a majority group of (stupid) people do something, it must be right.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:


So your saying that because people are doing good things with the music and good things will come of it that it is no longer stealing...
Just because it is used for a good cause does not take away the fact that it is theft.
Best anology I could think of:
Robbin Hood STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robbin Hood stole stuff for a good purpose, but we didn't relabel it to take the word stole out.

It is not stealing however you look at it. Even if you feel that artists should be paid every time a copy of their work is made, you're talking about paying for a service, not a product. If someone builds a road and charges a toll for everyone who drives down it, then if 3 people drive down it without paying you wouldn't say those people have "stolen" the use of the road, would you?

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


It is not stealing however you look at it. Even if you feel that artists should be paid every time a copy of their work is made, you're talking about paying for a service, not a product. If someone builds a road and charges a toll for everyone who drives down it, then if 3 people drive down it without paying you wouldn't say those people have "stolen" the use of the road, would you?

I wouldn't, just because it sounds weird, but the law would.

[LordWiccara]

big time "artists" (if i can even call them that) have enough money to let their songs get distributed for free.  they remind me of micro$hit:  greedy and horrible at writing.

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


No, I'm not saying that. You suggested that artists making their work available for free can't be a good idea as a large number of people aren't doing it already. You were suggesting that if a majority group of (stupid) people do something, it must be right.

I said "large group of people," referring to the artists and labels that make the most money and are therefore the best at getting money.  not fair money or honest money, but they are the best at getting money.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
I wouldn't, just because it sounds weird, but the law would.

Don't be ridiculous; of course it wouldn't. And why call it "stealing"? Why not say they've "murdered" the road? Or they've "illegally immigrated into" the road?

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by ArmTheHomeless:
big time "artists" (if i can even call them that) have enough money to let their songs get distributed for free.  they remind me of micro$hit:  greedy and horrible at writing.

I really think that is beside the point.  If they can earn more money they should, even if they don't "need" it.  If you take that attitude no one but the poorest of people can have stuff because no one else "needs" it.  "I don't need a new car, but a family in chine sure could."  You can't live your life based one what you need or esle you will be held back forever from achieving great things so that you can have "stuff" that you don't "need."

[LordWiccara]

quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:


I really think that is beside the point.  If they can earn more money they should, even if they don't "need" it.  If you take that attitude no one but the poorest of people can have stuff because no one else "needs" it.  "I don't need a new car, but a family in chine sure could."  You can't live your life based one what you need or esle you will be held back forever from achieving great things so that you can have "stuff" that you don't "need."

this is true, but the artists whine too much about loosing a few thousand here and there.  they did earn the money but maybe if people stopped sharing files, they could give the extra money to the poor...they are odviously surviving without it, and the poor sure could use their help.  Anyways, a lot of voices of todays shitty music doesnt even come from the artist, it comes from a song writter.  they should be the ones complaining, and im sure they would if they didnt sign the rights over to the lazy ass bands.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by jtpenrod:
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.          

I know that there is good music out there freely available on the net. I myself have never downloaded a tune off the net, I just cannae be bothered. I rarely buy CDs. My wife gets knock off CDs for stuff that we would never buy anyway. This is what the record companies need to think about in their grand scheme of things. Most of the stuff being downloaded "illegaly" is not lost revenue, it's stuff people wouldn't buy in the first place.
The price of a CD is far more than it's actually worth, this is why I don't buy CDs, I'm a cheap bastard. You buy a $15.00 CD on the notion that the single was pretty good but fuck me, the other 12 songs are absolute shite. This is a con. That CD should be $3.00 max ! I hope all of this does give the record companies sleepless nights.

No, I'm not on the record companies side, far from it believe it or not.

As for Calum's music ? I'm saying nowt !  

[realist]

Stealing involves directly removing something from someone's possession.

Can anyone point out how copying files from one computer to another is depriving anybody of anything.

And I find that there is a huge amount of good music out there on the Internet, for those who bother to look. I also find that the music available from file sharing networks is usually the same old claptrap you can buy in the shops. I'd prefer to see unreleased live music proliferating more often, but if that's what people want, that's what they'll get.

[xyle_one]

the last time i looked at this thread there were only like 8 posts, so i haven't read all of them yet. i probably won't. so if i say something that has been said already, i apologize. I have been pretty mixed about file "sharing" music, and movies. For one, it is like getting a warez version of windows. windows sucks, but since i can get it for free, i might as well use it. when you have an assortment of linux ditros to choose from, using windows, even a free copy, makes no sense. Why download music that is all the same mindless crap. It all sounds the same. You might get lucky, and find a label artist who is actually good. I know there are a few out there. And, you are indirectly supporting the riaa, whom we bitch about quite a bit. "fuck them and there evil business practices/methods whatever, i will just ignore it and listen to their music? what. right. I do not want to support them, in any form, so i shouldn't download the big labels music, because that is helping them keep control. like windows. enough with the computer references. lets move on. downloading music is not like getting a copy from a freind. When my freind buys a disc, and i like it, he will burn a copy for me. ripping a cd and sharing it with millions of people online is much more serious. that is stealing on a massive scale. again, why even bother. i for one, do not want to be told what to listen to. or what is popular and how i should dress. i want music back as an artform. with real artists. downloading music for free isnt helping this. supporting the labels is not helping to kill an "Industry". that term alone should be enough to ignore their shit. its a music "industry"? that makes no sense. like this post. im tired and am sorta jumping around. im done.

[suselinux]

These people arent really saving the world

Do they real;ly deserve millions