Piracy

Nathaniel607 wrote: But it's not as cut-and-dry as that. "if you don't buy music you're a heartless b*****d" approach can't really apply to everything. As those studies I show seem to prove, file sharing does not devalue music at all, with many "pirates" still paying for loads of music.

I actually addressed that in the post - so I'm not at all trying to simplify the matter. What I object to is when people say "I'll download this and that although I know that the artist disagrees, but the ends justify the means, ultimately this promotes the artist, everybody's doing it anyway, and look at my collection of 1000+ CDs that I spent a lot of cash on etc". That all makes sense to some degree, but at the end of the day you're still ignoring the artist's wishes. I think that this is wrong - but that's not the same as calling people who do this "heartless b*****ds".

Nathaniel607 wrote: Of course, this argument could go on forever, because, as you say, there is an intrinsic morale wrongness in downloading music. But studies seem to suggest it really isn't affecting things that much.

The business model needs to change - and ultimately it will. I think the best thing you can do to speed that along is to support artists who are trying different approaches now. Let Steven Wilson continue torching iPods and villify mp3 ... IMO that's completely beside the point. The musical content of a mp3 track and the vinyl version are completely equivalent from an artistical point of view. People tend to see more value in an actual physical disc than in a file on their hard drive because the concept of listening to music without having a physical medium is new to them - not because listening to a vinyl is actually a superior musical experience compared to listening to the mp3. The content is the music - the sound that comes out of the speakers when you listen to the music - not the plastic disc that's revolving. The artwork, booklet etc. is part of the music - and when you buy new albums as mp3 from Amazon, they come with digital booklets, and the cover art is embedded in the files.

Snow Dog wrote: I think he means devalue as in one doesn't appreciate the music as much if it's free.

I would put it this way: There are people who think that music should not be something you have to pay for - no matter how much time and money went into producing it, you should not have to pay for a download since there is no actual cost involved in duplicating the file. This is the idea that needs to be opposed. I'm all for artists who offer their music for free (hey, you can listen to my demo track for free on last.fm) - and I doubt that people automatically devalue music when there's no price tag attached to it. They should simply respect the artist's right to decide whether you can download it for free or not, and that it's because there's value in musical content and not just the medium that it's recorded on.

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: I remember the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' campaign when I was younger and it certainly didn't do that. Isn't that a bit like saying: I remember the 'Smoking Kills' campaign when I was younger and it certainly didn't do that as there are people who smoke who are still alive. The argument cannot be that downloading totally kills music, the argument must be that it kills some music. It is plausible to think that in the absence of illegitimate downloading, the music available in the world would be different in some way; some artists would probably be here that are not.

 

Isn't piracy a different issue from illegal downloaders?  Piracy has been around since the pre-digital days.  It's making hard copies and selling them off dirt cheap as if they were legitimate versions the album or a movie.  

Slartibartfast wrote: Isn't piracy a different issue from illegal downloaders?  Piracy has been around since the pre-digital days.  It's making hard copies and selling them off dirt cheap as if they were legitimate versions the album or a movie.

There are two kinds of piracy:
A) The pirate profits from the act of pirating, much like a drug dealer selling drugs,
B) Nobody is making money off the downloads. People share stuff because they believe in sharing stuff.

You're referring to A. We were talking about B. Go figure.

Snow Dog wrote: paganinio wrote: Snow Dog wrote: [QUOTE=cphil]I really don't care if people copy and distribute pop or rapp  !nobody wants to hear or discus it in 10 years time Revolver by The Beatles is a pop album. Let's all downlaod  it, quick! This not my quote, can you edit it please?

Sure.

I was quoting you on a different matter. I was saying that Firefox is free, websites are free, so should we donate to them in order to not "devalue" it?
I think it's just a legal and moral issue, and it has nothing to do with "people don't appreciate music as much when they get it for free"

Here's my two cents...

Piracy can be good or bad, pending on the person who engages in the activity. I know plenty of people who will go and download full discographies without thinking about it twice, and THAT is wrong. They will never use piracy to "sample" a band, and will simply get all the music they need and leave the band in the dust.

Although I rarely will ever download anything, I've found it as a good sampling method that has given me exposure to bands that I never would have heard of otherwise.

For example... my friend sent me a copy of Edge of Sanity's Crimson on a rapidshare link and said that I'd really like it. I downloaded it, and found it AMAZING. Within the next week I had the album, as well as other EoS releases, on order from Amazon. This is an example of when piracy isn't a bad thing. I'm now a Dan Swano fanboy, and religiously purchase every new release coming from him.

Many musicians die penniless with only their music as their legacy. But even that is stolen from them. First the industry bosses , then the heartless thieves on the internet.Piracy is theft and it is Wrong. Will the problem ever be solved. NOT IN OUR LIFETIME !

Snow Dog wrote: cphil wrote: Many musicians die penniless with only their music as their legacy. But even that is stolen from them. First the industry bosses , then the heartless thieves on the internet.Piracy is theft and it is Wrong. Will the problem ever be solved. NOT IN OUR LIFETIME ! Is downloading theft? Is it permanently denying the artist of something they own? Do many musicians die penniless? You have proof? Are you in fact the member of a band who is on his uppers?We need to know.

Yeah, the only musicians I've heard of dying penniless are;

A) Crap

or

B) Drunks/drug addicts

Also, piracy isn't really theft in the tradition sense. I've heard it being compared to stealing bread from a baker, but that would only really work if it were some kind of magial "infinite bread" which regenerated as soon as someone ate a bit of it.

If an artist sells 50 000 units (it rarely happenes to new and unknown ones ) and pirates own 100 000, there surely must be something wrong with this picture. So , Pirates don't steal they just promote the artists for free. All the illegal copies on servers and hard drives are just file sharing. I get it now.

Nathaniel607 wrote: SouthSideoftheSky wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: I remember the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' campaign when I was younger and it certainly didn't do that. Isn't that a bit like saying: I remember the 'Smoking Kills' campaign when I was younger and it certainly didn't do that as there are people who smoke who are still alive. The argument cannot be that downloading totally kills music, the argument must be that it kills some music. It is plausible to think that in the absence of illegitimate downloading, the music available in the world would be different in some way; some artists would probably be here that are not. Name one artist that was undeniably destroyed by piracy. I can't think of any. Maybe there are a couple, but certainly not many.

Nick Barrett of Pendragon came close, I believe he had to remortgage his house to keep going.