post yo musics

[xurich]

If you can't afford to buy music...then you can't f**king afford it, therefore you do not get to own it.

you can own it if you download it

[echo_trail]

Not in a legal sense.

[N. Escalona]

In other words, not in any sense.

[echo_trail]

Well.. in a hunter/gather sense, yes.

[ValiS]

I think downloading music is ok as far as you dont make money from it, like playing illegal cd-s in a club and getting payd. I'm a dj myself, and u cant actually download vinyls, so i have no worries with that, i make money from it and i pay the artists. AND, at every party theres going to be people who download music illegally, but they have to pay to get in the club, so in a sense they are actually supporting the artist, because they pay to the club, the club pays the dj, and the dj pays the artist by buying their records... think about it, its a win-win-win situation.
However, i do download music illegally, most of it i would not buy, so you cant really count it as a "lost sale". But... if i find anything that would work well in a club or smth that i just like so much i'd like to own the vinyl, i buy it or am on the lookout for that artist. I would have never heard of a lot of good artist (whose record i have bought since) had i not downloaded their music illegally.
Im working on some projects myself and we are going to promote it by letting people download some songs (hey! but thats not illegal! you may say now), because I know that there are lots of people who buy records they like (like me). And the ones who DL and dont buy... well, what about them? Thats pure publicity (any kind of publicity is ....), maybe someone hears the music from the pirate's boombox and buys the record.
So I really dont see why some of you try to enforce some pointless law here, the "lost sale" myth etc is pure bullshit. More and more artist are letting people download their songs, or even whole albums, have they gone crazy?

[N. Escalona]

It's pretty damn simple. If the artist says you can download his songs for free, then you can. Otherwise, you can't.

[Demonic]

It's pretty damn simple. If the artist says you can download his songs for free, then you can. Otherwise, you can't.

Oh if it were that simple.

Record companies make contracts with bands, stating that they will spread their work: they'll make CD's, they'll authorise releases, they'll send the word around, give out sample disks - in return they ask for a fat portion of the profits (exceeding that which the musicians make, mind you) and that the band gives up their rights to do the former things mentioned. This means that the band is basically no longer the owner of their work in these terms. I call that theft.

It's not just the music sales which keep this running either: merchandise, tours, 'high' performances and media appearance can very much pay it all. The number of album downloads is well in the high billions, however record sales have only dropped by a few percents: that means people still buy music, in fact, it is probable that they are supporting the artists they like. It's not theft if there is no direct victim - yet these thieves will buy shirts, will buy DVD-s, will attend to shows, and so on, and so on. Damn us all.

In my case, give my country a proper iTunes database and no silly taxes weighing on electric money transfer, and I will buy songs. In the meanwhile, all I can do is buy stuff directly from the band when they drop by on a tour. With some parts of the world, record companies and the nomenclature around them are actually pulling these musicians back when it comes to spreading.

And for the sake of justification - in Hungary, downloading music is not illegal. Yet there's an additional tax on each empty cd, dvd, blu-ray and USB you buy, in the name of 'you're probably going to burn copyrighted material on it anyway'. Go go gadget-dumb!

[ValiS]

Well then i must conclude that some artists dont know whats best for them.

Consider that: people make music for 2 reasons, to make money or to make music.. in some cases both (although the distinction is a fuzzy one). There are other factors involved, but since we are only discussing illegal downloading, i'll leave them out.

If you just want to make music, u should have no problem with people downloading your music.
If you want to make money, u should have no problem with people downloading your music. Companies going on a witchhunt (is that how it's spelled?) on illegal mp3s should instead use the time and the money to turn this phenomenon in their favour. Where does the money come to fight the pirates? Seems to me that it comes from the people who buy their music.. isn't it a bit absurd? They should make buying music more attractive.
Again, i am technically a pirate, but not morally, because i buy as much music as i can, and if i download things i would not and could not buy, that is no financial loss to the artist and the company. Its free advertising. In my opinion people who do not understand this have a very narrow outlook and they are holding back their business, because they only dare to do what other are doing, nothing new.

A good point Demonic, in my country its the same: 6% of pretty much every recordable media item goes to the authors union or some organisation like that.

[Farah]

I better save money, I can't waste it. if i want music, I dload it, as everyone, it hurts nobody.

Seriously, what is with this culture of entitlement that seems to be happening? It's like you think you have the right to own music. Here's the thing, music is not a basic necessity of life, you are NOT ENTITLED to have any music you want. Here's an idea. If you can't afford to buy music...then you can't f**king afford it, therefore you do not get to own it. I mean it costs less than a dollar to buy a song. If you think a song is not worth that, then you don't buy it, its as simple as that.

At least have the honesty to admit that what you are doing is illegal and not 'harmless' as you put it.

legal and harmless here buddy.

[~Niko~]

if it would be illegal then there NOBODY should be allowed to share the music with the world. Also, I haven't got to pay for any music, though I love it. Musicians have enough money, don't you think?

[gladiator2]

if it would be illegal then there NOBODY should be allowed to share the music with the world. Also, I haven't got to pay for any music, though I love it. Musicians have enough money, don't you think?

...So basically what you're saying is you'd like a socialistic setting for the music industry, where we get their work for free, and they don't get paid for their work because they have enough money?

In theory, Socialism sounds great. The Robin Hood mentality: take from the rich; give to the poor. The artists are rolling in cash. We're shelling out what little money we have for their work. Ideally, we should get their music for free, and they should be fine with what money they have.

But socialism isn't realistic. At the end of the day, the greedy artists won't want to produce work they won't get paid for. At the same time, we will be used to getting their songs for free, and will be unwilling to start paying for them. Thus, you have a breakdown in the music industry.

Though I agree they have a lot of money, I disagree that they shouldn't be paid. Not only 'cause they deserve it, but also because not paying can upset the balance. Think of it as a food web.

[Farah]

he's saying that one person has no affect because millions of people pay for the music, they get enough cash as it is.

[jerich]

I'll post some guitar playing, mostly video game music since this is a gaming forum later but here's my song I did for midi class a couple years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxyY7ZXtL8

I'm not anyone in the video btw but you can find me elsewhere very easily.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

just a quick word on this talk about music piracy - ill have to admit it offends me when people take objection to me downloading music and everything else

every business that has ever existed made/makes a daily living out of ripping people off 700%

its basically my right to take money out of companies. if someone punches me im going to punch them back. and when the government take a large percent of my tax and uses it to buy things for themselves (outside of their wage) or puts it into ridiculous schemes or ways to cover their mistakes, that is like punching me. the same with businesses. every business in the world knows you are eventually going to have to buy what you want so they all try and rip you off as much as they can rather than take a fair price

so im going to download everything i want. f**k off to anyone that thinks thats wrong

[~Niko~]

yeah, also, why would I want a CD, waste 20€ and some of my time? I only play music on PC and MP3, i don't need the CD for ANYTHING.

[gladiator2]

he's saying that one person has no affect because millions of people pay for the music, they get enough cash as it is.

Yeah, I know Farah. It's a dumb idea, 'cause that's like saying "I mine as well not go vote 'cause one vote isn't gonna mean much in a national election."

If one person thinks like that, then say everyone will think like that. Why drag yourself to the polling station? Why stand in line for 8 hours? Not worth the trouble. Your choice won't make a difference... right?

If one person can get all the music, totally free, then everyone will want to get their music totally free. Why have to pay for it?

Sure, individually, our one vote or our $14.99 won't make much of a difference, but in reality, it just doesn't work like that.

[Farah]

but everybody DOESN'T do it, so why should I? if enough people do it for them to stay in business i don't give a damn.

[N. Escalona]

he's saying that one person has no affect because millions of people pay for the music, they get enough cash as it is.

If even one person fails to live up to the agreement between buyer and seller, then no, they do not get enough cash as it is.

If it were acceptable for one person to violate the law then it would be acceptable for every person to violate the law. Because it is certainly not acceptable for everyone to violate the law, then it is not acceptable for anyone to violate the law. Proof by denying the consequent.

Obviously that ignores situations in which the lesser of multiple evils is to violate the law. But the basic form is correct.

but everybody DOESN'T do it, so why should I? if enough people do it for them to stay in business i don't give a damn.

Morality is utterly independent of what everyone else is doing. Please don't deny that, or I might have to violate Godwin's Law.

just a quick word on this talk about music piracy - ill have to admit it offends me when people take objection to me downloading music and everything else

every business that has ever existed made/makes a daily living out of ripping people off 700%

its basically my right to take money out of companies. if someone punches me im going to punch them back. and when the government take a large percent of my tax and uses it to buy things for themselves (outside of their wage) or puts it into ridiculous schemes or ways to cover their mistakes, that is like punching me. the same with businesses. every business in the world knows you are eventually going to have to buy what you want so they all try and rip you off as much as they can rather than take a fair price

so im going to download everything i want. f**k off to anyone that thinks thats wrong

This is pretty much the single argument for piracy that's closest to being valid. I'll get around to typing a good response later

[Farah]

well call me an arrogant piece of shit because i honestly do not care for a corporate motherfucker who i'll never meet in my life nor will ever affect my life(god forbid).

honestly your argument is fundamentally correct but again the thing is: i sincerely do not give a shit about stealing it since it's overpriced and they're pretty fucking rich

[STM1993]

I wouldn't mind buying CDs and recordings etc, but here's why I prefer downloading online than buying:

1. I don't trust the system of buying online, I'd rather buy directly.
2. There's more variety on the internet than in the shop. I may not be able to find some of the older albums that I'm looking for.
3. I risk buying a song that I do not like. (this can be solved if the shop allows you to listen to the full song once [or at least a reasonable preview], though it can bring out inconvenience to other buyers)
4. Many a times, I'm just looking for ONE song. However, for the sake of one song, I must buy an entire album which I may not like.
5. If what Demonic says is true, then I'm against the recording companies, because they're actually leeching from the bands. Plus, look at youtube. Now, how in the world am I going to be able to preview songs that I am interested in other than running around and looking for a CD shop which I find a waste of time and a great inconvenience in many scenarios?
6. There are people who download... but also buy.

I don't mind being forced to have to listen on the internet and not have the song in my computer either (recording is NEVER better than the original), but I would absolutely hate it if I have not even a single chance to listen to an artist's work.



*ontopic to Farah's works*
I can't load the pages to listen to the three you composed. Can you provide a better link?