Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ethical to download pirated music?

Rate this topic


Guest Marshall Sontag

Recommended Posts

I only think file sharing is wrong if you don't buy the cd after listening to the material and liking it, you don't have to buy the cd right away but eventually i don't see why one wouldn't. All music enthusiasts who download want the full package, double clicking on a mp3 doens't compare to the feeling of opening a nicely packaged cd and cranking it up on the stereo while looking at the liner notes,etc... I also see that these would only be music enthusiasts who get this feeling, being an aspiring professional musician I only value the opinion of the music enthusiast. Meaning, if your average person who just throws on the radio for background noise told me he liked my music I probably wouldn't think much of it nor have I in the past. But when someone who loves music to the extent that I do tells me his opinion I regard it as meaningful and accept it. Most people who download are either downloading just because they don't like enough of the material on the album to buy it or so they can burn it on a cd and clain they have it to all the kids at school so they are labeled "cool". This is the case for most high school kids, regardless of whether they have money or not, the majority of their music is either on an ipod or burned cd and they will never care to get the full package. As far as justifying the people who only like a few songs on the album or less you have to realize that an album is a collection of songs. If the album doens't flow and there is a certain amount of filler then it is not a good album, it just has some quality songs.

Another fallacy is legal downloading; these websites such as Napster have a terrible selection in which music enthusiasts can't find anything they like being that they usually have a vast knowledge of material.

To someone who downloads my music and doens't plan on buying it, knock yourself out, its most likely you are just listening to it because you want the approval of others and in that case I don't even acknowledge you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will never steal from a store. Did you not understand that part of it?
I did see it: I don't understand how it's relevant, since you're still stealing.
You know, what libraries illegally allow you to do to books?
Actually it's perfectly legal for libraries to allow you to borrow the copy of a book that they have purchased. They are neither legally or morally responsible for your crimes.
Okay. And this is unacceptable? My transgression is worse than the prices in that industry? Fine.
Yes, it is unacceptable
Do you pay taxes? Let's see if you're a hypocrite.
I do, in fact, but what does that have to do with anything? The hypocrite would condemn theft while stealing: but I'm condemning theft and also being stolen from (which I condemn).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another fallacy is legal downloading; these websites such as Napster have a terrible selection in which music enthusiasts can't find anything they like being that they usually have a vast knowledge of material.

How is legal downloading a fallacy? iTunes alone has over 2 million songs and counting. I find it hard to believe you can't find anything you like out of the entire commercial digital library.

A couple years ago, I had the pleasure of chatting with Mike Dreese, CEO of Newbury Comics (one of the most successful independent music retailers in America). I remember him being very indie-minded/little guy/damn-the-man. Yet, in the declaration he gave to Congress six years ago, here's part of what he had to say. How frighteningly prophetic:

"The greatest danger posed by Napster . . . is that consumers are beginning to consider free music to be an entitlement. This concept, of course, ignores and completely devalues both the work done by the artists themselves to create the music and the funds invested by the record companies and retailers to bring that music to the consumers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if you're washing clothes in Uganda.
In which case, he sure doesn't have an internet connection or a computer, or electricity. I'm not totaly unfamiliar with Ugandan washermen: they are a very honorable bunch, who do not steal or proudly advocate stealing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case, he sure doesn't have an internet connection or a computer, or electricity. I'm not totaly unfamiliar with Ugandan washermen: they are a very honorable bunch, who do not steal or proudly advocate stealing.

You know. You're quick to call me immoral, but most of the music I download is from artists who're fine with it. Artists that make a big stink of it I don't so much as listen to or download, because I don't want to have anything to do with them. You won't find any metallica on my computer for this reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know. You're quick to call me immoral, but most of the music I download is from artists who're fine with it. Artists that make a big stink of it I don't so much as listen to or download, because I don't want to have anything to do with them. You won't find any metallica on my computer for this reason.
Are you claiming that you only download music offered for free by the owners of the copyright?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know. You're quick to call me immoral, but most of the music I download is from artists who're fine with it. Artists that make a big stink of it I don't so much as listen to or download, because I don't want to have anything to do with them. You won't find any metallica on my computer for this reason.

We're not talking about what has been posted for free by the artist themselves. If that was all you downloaded, you couldn't call yourself a pirate. We're quick to call you immoral because you freely claim you commit immoral acts and try to justify those actions with irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is legal downloading a fallacy? iTunes alone has over 2 million songs and counting. I find it hard to believe you can't find anything you like out of the entire commercial digital library.

A couple years ago, I had the pleasure of chatting with Mike Dreese, CEO of Newbury Comics (one of the most successful independent music retailers in America). I remember him being very indie-minded/little guy/damn-the-man. Yet, in the declaration he gave to Congress six years ago, here's part of what he had to say. How frighteningly prophetic:

"The greatest danger posed by Napster . . . is that consumers are beginning to consider free music to be an entitlement. This concept, of course, ignores and completely devalues both the work done by the artists themselves to create the music and the funds invested by the record companies and retailers to bring that music to the consumers."

Fallacy was the wrong word, but 2 million songs is not alot. It also deals with mostly commercial stuff, how many die hard music geeks out there are pulling out their hair desperatly trying to download metallica songs. People like me usually download to find stuff we can't find, such as easily accesible soundclips or out of print cd's/albums. Legal downloading may work for your average person who probably owns 50 store bought cd's, but for a music enthusiasts who has over 2000 cds it doesn't cut it. I'm not saying the artists don't have the right to make money off of anybody who remotly likes their music to the smallest degree, but my question is why would that artist care that the percentage of his fanbase is only on account of the "cool" factor. This has nothing to do with remianing underground or anything like that its simply respecting an elite fanbase regardless of who you are and what you play. This could be applied to all art forms, you think Ayn Rand would be flattered if a bunch of sheep 15 year olds were buying her books and obviously not grasping them. Yeah she'd be making money but she would still hold her more devoted readers with more respect. I'm not saying everyone who downloads legally is a poseur either, yes, I am stating a majority of them are. (my evidence of someone taking on this terms would be how they explain their love for the music, if they don't have a reason for why they like it, then chances are they really don't). Getting back to the ethical standpoint of this, my stance is that those who don't buy the cd's eventually or who are only downloading because they don't appreciate a majority of the album or songs by that artists are justified. Those who download and don't buy the cd's arent enthusiasts and couldn't explain to me why they like the music so why should they even matter. Yes, if it wasn't for dling, artists could be making money off these hollow minds but their not. Instead they are reaching to more enthusiasts and gaining a larger elite audience.

So in short, it can be ethical just as long as you apply this reasoning to it and appreciate the music. It's unethical if you are just using it for evidence that you like the band and you arent' just saying you like them because everyone else does. (For those who don't know, most of the youth is like this, up until a few months ago I used ot put up with this everyday)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fallacy was the wrong word . . . .

What everyone seems to sidestep is the fact that there are laws against downloading and sharing music without the atrist or distributer's consent. There are many artists and record labels actively campaigning against it. There have been many lawsuits brought against piraters. It is their product and people are stealing it. There have been congressional hearings on it. I am amazed at how many people on this thread have tried to justify this theft. It does not matter if you are planning to buy the cd or not, stealing something from a store to 'test it out' and then going back a few weeks later to pay for it, is still theft. There are so many legal ways of seeing what an album sounds like before buying it, that the parties involved have no problems with. If the people selling the songs are saying it's theft, how can you even begin to justify by saying if they don't really like the songs, they aren't stealing? What the thief thinks of or how he values what he steals is irrelevant, only what the victim does.

[Edit: trimmed down the quote which consisted of the entire previous post.--Matt]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the ethical standpoint of this, my stance is that those who don't buy the cd's eventually or who are only downloading because they don't appreciate a majority of the album or songs by that artists are justified.

The problem with this is that it ignores a fundamental aspect of property. When you rightfully own something, you have the right to set the terms with which others must comply if they want to use that thing. The copyright owner says, "I will sell you this song for 99 cents." You say, "I want to hear it first." The copyright owner responds, "I will let you listen to a clip." If that is all the copyright owner permits, then you must base your buying decision on that information. You must decide whether you think the expected payoff is worth the 99 cent cost. Lacking information that you want does not give you the right to take from another to get that information. You do not have a right to information. When you can get the information you want from others who are willing to give it to you, that's fantastic. If those with the information you want will not give it to you willingly, then you must account for the risk of the unknown in making your buying decision.

I understand your suggestion that when a person downloads a song but would not in fact have purchased it then there is no harm. That would probably be correct if harm was defined strictly as economic harm. The failure is that harm is not strictly economic. In this case, the harm lies in the fact that the owner's property was taken from him on terms to which he did not agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that it ignores a fundamental aspect of property. When you rightfully own something, you have the right to set the terms with which others must comply if they want to use that thing. The copyright owner says, "I will sell you this song for 99 cents." You say, "I want to hear it first." The copyright owner responds, "I will let you listen to a clip." If that is all the copyright owner permits, then you must base your buying decision on that information.

Morally speaking, what is the difference between borrowing the CD from a friend to find out whether you like it, and downloading a copy from your friends computer to see whether you like it (assuming you delete it if you dont like it, and buy it if you do). I dont see any reason why the makers of a song should have any right to decide who gets to listen to the song - thats absurd, and when taken to its logical conclusion would result in laws banning you from playing music in front of your friends. Copyright should only apply to permanent ownership of the material in question, not 'listening privileges'.

To be honest, I could take most of the 'anti-piracy' arguments given in this thread and use them with only minor modifications as arguments claiming its immoral to borrow books from your friends ("but what makes you think you have the right to read Atlas Shrugged without paying for it?!")

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only think file sharing is wrong if you don't buy the cd after listening to the material and liking it, you don't have to buy the cd right away but eventually i don't see why one wouldn't. All music enthusiasts who download want the full package, double clicking on a mp3 doens't compare to the feeling of opening a nicely packaged cd and cranking it up on the stereo while looking at the liner notes,etc... I also see that these would only be music enthusiasts who get this feeling, being an aspiring professional musician
This might be what you do when you buy a CD, but why do you think it applies to everyone (sorry, all 'music enthusiasts')? Personally when I get a CD, the first thing I do is rip the tracks from it in a lossless format onto my computer, then reencode them for my portable mp3 player. The liner notes are useful if they contain song lyrics, but other than that, who cares? The physical medium is entirely dispensible - the only reason why I dont throw the CD out immediately after ripping the tracks is in case I have an accident with my harddrive.

Being a music enthuasist is about listening to music, not looking at pictures and reading liner notes.

edit: I would guess that its people like me who most strongly resent paying $15 for a cd, when you know that at least half of that money is going to middlemen who should be obsolete (eg, the costs of producing the physical material, 'distribution' fees, retailers cuts, and so on). I have no problem with rewarding artists for their work, but I do have a large problem with funding a whole load of anachronistic clingers-on who shouldnt exist, and this is where most of the money involved in CD purchasing goes. If there was a way to legally download music which a) stocked artists other than those in the mainstream charts, B) was encoded at good quality (preferably lossless, but at least 228vbr), and c) let me actually own the songs rather than coming with stupid DRM restrictions, I'd definitely use it. However, the optimal solution would be for artists to include linkson their webpages, which allowed their fans to donate money directly.

edit: I'd be interested in some real figures which showed how much money the artists actually received everytime you bought one of their cds. I dont have any data, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 20-30% of the price.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I managed to find some actual data:

This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.

$0.17 Musicians' unions

$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing

$0.82 Publishing royalties

$0.80 Retail profit

$0.90 Distribution

$1.60 Artists' royalties

$1.70 Label profit

$2.40 Marketing/promotion

$2.91 Label overhead

$3.89 Retail overhead

This is one of the main reasons why I'm reluctant to buy CDs. You generally arent doing anything romantic like 'rewarding the productive' - your money is largely being used to prop up a parasitical industry, rather than actually going to those who make the product. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bed very soon. (Ironically enough, in a few hours I have a final in my Copyright class.) Plus, the next several days are going to be extremely busy for me. Therefore, I can not give you an appropriately thorough response at this time. With that said, I will try to identify some issues that we can think about for further discussion.

Morally speaking, what is the difference between borrowing the CD from a friend to find out whether you like it, and downloading a copy from your friends computer to see whether you like it (assuming you delete it if you dont like it, and buy it if you do).

A factual difference is that in one instance a copy is made. What we have to do is identify the underlying reasoning for intellectual property rights and determine whether, why, and under what circumstances a copy being made violates those rights. One issue with which I still struggle is whether it is proper to copy across different media exclusively for your own use. Why can't the creator insist that if you want a CD, you buy a CD, and if you want to put the CD songs on your iPod, then you buy the downloads for your iPod? I don't know the right answer to this because I lack a firm grasp of the rationale for intellectual property.

I dont see any reason why the makers of a song should have any right to decide who gets to listen to the song - thats absurd, and when taken to its logical conclusion would result in laws banning you from playing music in front of your friends. Copyright should only apply to permanent ownership of the material in question, not 'listening privileges'.
We should identify two different scenarios here: the contract scenario and the law scenario. What could a copyright owner not include in an agreement to sell someone, say, a CD? Should he not contractually be able to say that if you want to buy his CD you can't play it, say, for any commercial benefit?

As to what the law should be, this is kind of a question of default rules in general. I don't yet have a firm grasp of the proper way to go about formulating a default rule. I know ways to go about formulating a default rule. For example, a default rule could require what is reasonable under the circumstances. What I don't know is what the proper default rule is.

You should know, if you do not already, that the law currently does give copyright owners the right to control many such listening privileges. See 17 U.S.C. 106(4), which gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to perform a work publicly. I'd be happy to discuss what I know of the intricacies of this area at another time. For example, you may say that playing a CD for your friends isn't "public." That isn't so open and shut. I can go through it later if you want. It would be good to think about what you think about a public performance right generally. Do you think it is proper for that to be a right of the copyright owner? Or should radio stations, concert halls, etc., be permitted to play music without compensating him provided they legally acquired the music?

To be honest, I could take most of the 'anti-piracy' arguments given in this thread and use them with only minor modifications as arguments claiming its immoral to borrow books from your friends ("but what makes you think you have the right to read Atlas Shrugged without paying for it?!")

As in your first instance, here a copy is not made. Also as in your first instance, we must consider whether and to what extent that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A factual difference is that in one instance a copy is made.
I guess what I'm asking is why the right to make copies is important, and deserving of legal protection. It strikes me as very arbitrary - there doesnt seem to be any difference between borrowing a CD, and downloading it then deleting it if you dont like it. The only tangible difference is that in the second case, the person who owns the original copy cant listen to it while you have it, so would it be ok if I downloaded the music while my friend was in bed, and deleted it before he woke up?

In my opinion, the only reason the right to copy is deserving of protection is because it is indirectly related to the right to permanent ownership - in order to actually keep the music/book/film permanently, youre going to have to either buy it or make a copy. But the fundamental issue here is the permanent ownership, not the copying. If you just copy something then delete it, I dont think youre infringing upon the producers rights any more than you are if you just borrow it. If you want to actually keep the media and listen to it regularly, then you should reward the creators for their work. Butif you are just listening to it to see if its any good, there's no need to do this.

One issue with which I still struggle is whether it is proper to copy across different media exclusively for your own use. Why can't the creator insist that if you want a CD, you buy a CD, and if you want to put the CD songs on your iPod, then you buy the downloads for your iPod?
I would say this is related to the above - regulating the 'copying' process has come to be seen as the end, rather than a means towards the end of regulating 'permanent ownership'. The idea that you cant make multiple copies for yourself has no objective basis.

I don't know the right answer to this because I lack a firm grasp of the rationale for intellectual property.

We should identify two different scenarios here: the contract scenario and the law scenario. What could a copyright owner not include in an agreement to sell someone, say, a CD? Should he not contractually be able to say that if you want to buy his CD you can't play it, say, for any commercial benefit?

It depends how this is done. I suppose we can imagine a situation where in order to buy a CD, you would have to sign a contract saying that you cant do X, Y and Z. And assuming you did this, I would say you would be morally obliged to oblige by the terms of the contract. But these restrictions would only be imposed on the signers - I dont think they could validly form part of any implicit contract.

I would treat all restrictions on how you listen to music the same way as I would treat a restriction saying you can only listen to the music while wearing red socks on a Tuesday. If you explicitly agree to a contract including these terms as part of a sale, then youre stuck with it. But if not, do as you please.

It would be good to think about what you think about a public performance right generally. Do you think it is proper for that to be a right of the copyright owner? Or should radio stations, concert halls, etc., be permitted to play music without compensating him provided they legally acquired the music?

I've not really thought about this, but I think it would depend on the nature of the performance. If it were non-commercial then I dont really have a problem with it - I think its perfectly ok for internet radio stations/podcasters to play music which they legally own without the permission of the artists, and I would say that this will be an important part of music listening in the future. Obviusly the record industry will try to clamp down on this, but this is to be expected since a) they apparently hate progress, and B) it might lose them money. The only restrictions here should apply to the listeners - I would frown on people making permanent copies from internet radio stations, and not paying the artists. I would also apply the same standards to normal radio - I think that taping things off the radio is just as bad as downloading music. This isnt really an issue at the moment thought, since streaming audio tends to be very low quality (64kps ish) and hence not comparable to proper recordings. Perhaps something like this could be the solution?

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm asking is why the right to make copies is important, and deserving of legal protection. It strikes me as very arbitrary - there doesnt seem to be any difference between borrowing a CD, and downloading it then deleting it if you dont like it.
It is entirely non-arbitrary, especially in the context of law. It's a metaphysical fact that if I borrow your CD, then in that time when I have it, you simply cannot enjoy your ownership of the CD. If you copy my CD, then I only have your word that you're not listening to it when I'm listening to it (plus during the period when you'd have to transport it back to my possession). The fact is that people who make copies of other people's CDs never even try to assure that there is no time-overlap in usage. That fact, that the original owner cannot use the CD when it's out of his hands, is a highly significant fact not to be sniffled at. And it's not just a "doesn't", it's a "can't".

The law is what it is because too many people are dishonest (as witnessed by the vast numbers of people who dishonestly download music illegally and even claim that it is okay to do so). Suppose I wrote a book and it were available electronically, and people could either buy a copy for a $25.00 or they could copy someone else's copy as long as they promise to not use the copy when the source is in use. Well what would happen is that honest people would buy their own copies, and dishonest people would make a copy off of some book-stealing website and claim "Hey, I'm not using it at the same time Joe is using it", which is just a lie. My interest in this is that I want as many people to buy the book as possible, so that I get more money. That's my reason for writing the book in the first place -- it's how I survive. If I knew that these thieving vermin were going to steal the book and cheat me out of my royalties, I wouldn't allow the electronic version of the book to be created in the first place.

But the fundamental issue here is the permanent ownership, not the copying.
There are reasons why the law focuses on copying rather than possession. Primarily, the purchaser may have no means of knowing whether the CD or book that he sees on the shelf is legal or illegal, although sometime you have reasons to suspect. Criminalizing possession of illegal copies would impose an undue burden on honest citizens. Whereas, anyone creating a copy can know they are doing so illegally.
Butif you are just listening to it to see if its any good, there's no need to do this.
Are you proposing an unbreakable "sample listen" technology where anyone can listen to a CD once, but only once, for free? The market already has something like that, namely the "listen to a sample" button. Do you find that unsatisfactory? You can also listen at many record stores.
I suppose we can imagine a situation where in order to buy a CD, you would have to sign a contract saying that you cant do X, Y and Z. And assuming you did this, I would say you would be morally obliged to oblige by the terms of the contract. But these restrictions would only be imposed on the signers - I dont think they could validly form part of any implicit contract.
Privity of contract is highly relevant here. If I have a sales contract with you that requires you to, say, not play the CD for money and to obligate you to make the same contract with anyone you sell the CD to, then I can sue you if you resell the CD without such a contractual condition, but I can't sue the person who you sold it to. That person then may perfectly legally and morally give away millions of unconditional copies of my CD and I have no recourse with the millions of third parties out there who now have my CD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a music enthuasist is about listening to music, not looking at pictures and reading liner notes.

Looking at pictures and reading the liner notes while involving the music. If you were just looking at pictures and reading the liner notes that wouldn't have anything to do with listening to music now would it? You might not appreciate the full packaging but there are many music geeks from before the cd generation that will fork out tons of money to buy an incredible stereo in which records have the same quality as a cd, just so they can have the experiance of listening to the album. Now i'm not that die hard about the full package but I am more content when buying a cd than double clicking on an mp3. I guess that's just a difference of fulfillment between us.

Now, I totally agree with you on the whole "rewarding the productive" term and how your money is going to a bunch of leeches.

Not applying to anything you said, but, some people on here still don't seem to understand that you can't always acquire samples or legal ways of downloading. I know its illegal but i'm not in the postion to waste money on a cd i expect to be good but end up getting let down and with a hole in my pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . some people on here still don't seem to understand that you can't always acquire samples or legal ways of downloading. I know its illegal but i'm not in the postion to waste money on a cd i expect to be good but end up getting let down and with a hole in my pocket.

1. Disregard the illegality, as the fact that something is illegal does not mean it is wrong. Let's just talk morality instead. Do you consider it stealing to download a song without the owner's permission? Why/why not?

2. If you don't consider it stealing, then you don't need to say anything about how much it costs you. All you need to say is that you don't consider it stealing. Then the fact that you haven't paid for it is irrelevant. If that's really your position, then let's address it.

3. If you do consider it (downloading w/o permission) stealing, then your concern about how much it costs you is irrelevant. If you don't want to pay the price and accept the terms set by the owner of the product you want, then don't buy it. You do not get to set the terms, the owner does. That's what ownership is.

4. Also irrelevant is your concern about not being able to find legal downloads. You do not have some absolute right to a song if you want it. You only have the right, if you choose to exercise it, to pay the owner what he asks.

5. This is a side issue, but one I would nonetheless like to discuss a little. What exactly do you claim you can not find a legal download for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not applying to anything you said, but, some people on here still don't seem to understand that you can't always acquire samples or legal ways of downloading. I know its illegal but i'm not in the postion to waste money on a cd i expect to be good but end up getting let down and with a hole in my pocket.

No, "some people on here" understand perfectly well. You aren't the first person to use the "I can't afford it so it's okay to 'borrow' it" or the "I can't get it any other way so it's okay to 'borrow' it" justification. You feel as though you have some right to someone else's IP for the purpose of "previewing" it even if the proper owner has not provided such a method of advertising or disposal of their music. That's nothing new or unique to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not applying to anything you said, but, some people on here still don't seem to understand that you can't always acquire samples or legal ways of downloading. I know its illegal but i'm not in the postion to waste money on a cd i expect to be good but end up getting let down and with a hole in my pocket.

I buy books that suck all the time, but I want to see if new authors are any good. I actually paid to go see Star Wars I at the movies, what a burning hole in my pocket that one left. If you don't wish to pay money for something your not sure is worth it, keep your money, no one is forcing you to give it up. If you don't get your expected value out of it, be ticked off, right reviews, tell your friends it sucked, but don't try to justify stealing because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Disregard the illegality, as the fact that something is illegal does not mean it is wrong. Let's just talk morality instead. Do you consider it stealing to download a song without the owner's permission? Why/why not?

3. If you do consider it (downloading w/o permission) stealing, then your concern about how much it costs you is irrelevant. If you don't want to pay the price and accept the terms set by the owner of the product you want, then don't buy it. You do not get to set the terms, the owner does. That's what ownership is.

4. Also irrelevant is your concern about not being able to find legal downloads. You do not have some absolute right to a song if you want it. You only have the right, if you choose to exercise it, to pay the owner what he asks.

5. This is a side issue, but one I would nonetheless like to discuss a little. What exactly do you claim you can not find a legal download for?

Yes, I do consider it stealing considering the artsit has not condoned me taking his music nor have I participated in an exchange with her/him for their music, I realize that. My concern about the is not irrelavent considering thats the biggest reason i'm stealing in the first place. If I could go to a store and get an extremely cheap cd i'd buy it, same goes for if I like the music i'm downloading...I will buy it. I know I don't have the right to previews or legal downloading. I am speaking to the people who use those as excuses not to download illegaly where their is a much better selection and a way to find new stuff you've never heard before (example: DC++) As far as what I can't find on legal sites; I'm looking on Napster write now and i'm not finding any of the artists I would usually download or buy a cd from. There was some stuff I was shocked they didn't have and 1 band that I was suprised when I saw them on there.

As to those who are telling me to except the hole in my pocket or except that an album may be out of print or that their are no samples; Why should I be content being deprived of potentially good music. There are many great bands I've gotten into as a result of downloading that I probably wouldn't of found samples of at the time much less their cd in a store. As for an album being unattainable and out of print, you are telling me to be content of never hearing the music until the album is back in print (which is pretty rare). Music is much more attainable due to downloading, people are able to have much more eclectic tastes than before downloading. If I had all the money in the world and just bought cd's left and right I would have to wade through so much crap and look at the money that could've gone to something more worthy, but I can't afford that luxury. So I download stuff i've never heard before, some good some bad, but all that money I could've wasted is going to something worth it.

If there is music out there that I want to hear I have every right to listen to it, be it illegally or not. If I like the material I will always buy it so I can have the great feeling of being in the posession of something worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do consider it stealing considering the artsit has not condoned me taking his music nor have I participated in an exchange with her/him for their music, I realize that. . . .

If there is music out there that I want to hear I have every right to listen to it, be it illegally or not.

So you claim a right to steal. I suggest, then, that your issue has nothing to do with music. You should focus your attention on the incorrect idea of claiming a right to violate rights. I believe this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum. Try the search function and see what you can find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to those who are telling me to except the hole in my pocket or except that an album may be out of print or that their are no samples; Why should I be content being deprived of potentially good music. There are many great bands I've gotten into as a result of downloading that I probably wouldn't of found samples of at the time much less their cd in a store. As for an album being unattainable and out of print, you are telling me to be content of never hearing the music until the album is back in print (which is pretty rare).

Boohoo. I do not believe anywhere has it been stated that you have a right to be provided with good music. We should legislate that all artist must make all their songs and albums available for download or be arrested for violating our rights, as your logic would dictate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boohoo. I do not believe anywhere has it been stated that you have a right to be provided with good music. We should legislate that all artist must make all their songs and albums available for download or be arrested for violating our rights, as your logic would dictate.

I don't believe in impending anything like that on anyone, I think its stupid that you wouldn't put it up for download, if the cd's don't sell after you do that, that would give you a pretty good idea of the sincerity of your fan base. I don't think I have an absolute right to music either, but I guess thats my vice. Some people violate the law by indulging in drugs,etc... I guess my flaw is downloading, oh well, so be it. I pay for the stuff I think deserves it and delete it afterwards thus after thinking about it, I did steal and do, but I give the product back after a while (I know, its still stealing, not trying to make my case any more just). I base my ethical argument on downloading from the standpoint of artists who have a true fan base and not a bunch mindless masses. The whole progressive genre has blossomed due to downloading, when my album comes out I will put it up for downloading everywhere, those who buy it, cool, those who don't, you don't like the stuff anyway and thats fine by me. Illegal downloading has helped an entire genre of music and will continue to do so and I can't see whats wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...