Is Downloading Music for free Wrong??

[BP2K2Max]

Originally Posted by DGB454

What suprises me is how cheap honor goes for these days. 30cents?

it surprises me the things people get so "high and mighty" over.

[Steel]

I downloaded every Metallica album.

Then again, i also bought every album too. And they were all stolen in one fell swoop. I'm sorry, but lars is rich enough, and i'm poor enough to justify not paying $140 for the albums. Again.

Edit - $140 of which the band itself will only see about $5 of, especailly after paying $85 (edit 2- for crappy seats) to see them live, of which they saw prolly $60 of... to add on top of their millions.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Hold on for a second. It is illegal.

I don't hear anything about people getting sued for recording songs off of the radio. And I'm sure more people do this than download songs off of the internet.

What you are depriving is the royalties. You can copy songs you own to your hearts content. It doesn't mean you can distribute them (or let others come and get them) to their heards content.

Buying music second hand is depriving artists of royalties too. I guess they should make that illegal too then.

[Spec2 Girl]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

How about a car analogy then. If you're car breaks down after owning it for ten years, why should you have to go and buy another.

That’s totally different. Why should I have to pay for exactly the same songs more than once. The artist has already got money out of me the first time around.

[originalmike]

Has anyone seen that SouthPark episode about this? That's pretty much how I feel about it.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by BP2K2Max

it surprises me the things people get so "high and mighty" over.

High and mighty when it comes to honor? Possibly you put to low of a value on a persons honor.

[Spec2 Girl]

Originally Posted by originalmike

Has anyone seen that SouthPark episode about this? That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Don’t think I’ve seen that one. What did they think of it?

[originalmike]

Originally Posted by DGB454

High and mighty when it comes to honor? Possibly you put to low of a value on a persons honor.

and maybe you put two low of a value on spelling.

The thing is, not downloading music does not make me feel like an honarable knight in shining armor, and if I do download music, I get it for free with a small risk of negative consequences. So from a behavorist perspective, I'm only doing what's natural and beneficial to me.

[DGB454]

Perhaps you should look up the word honar,honor,behavorist and behaviorist.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

I don't hear anything about people getting sued for recording songs off of the radio. And I'm sure more people do this than download songs off of the internet.

I've never heard of anyone doing this (not that its not done) but that doesn't make it legal.

Buying music second hand is depriving artists of royalties too. I guess they should make that illegal too then.

You can resell the music - you can no longer own the songs in other formats (any copies) so there is nothing illegal about it. If you copy the music to continue to listen and sell the songs, then it is illegal.

[SonyMobile]

Well, I dont no if this has been said already, I read the first bunch of posts and skipped to the last,

I think it is ok, technically someone Had to pay for either the CD to copy the song and put it out on the internet for other people to download so they paid for the CD and the songs on it, and are letting other people borrow it,

Also, if they taped it off the tv, they had to pay for sum sort of cable, or the TV its self, so they paid for sumthing, and I am much like the guy with downloading all of the unrealeased tupac stuff, I download all sorts of unrealeased stuff from many artists, or I download a couple songs off the artists new album to get an idea of the sound of the CD, then go out and buy it. If i couldnt do this I wouldnt own many CD's at all.

[DGB454]

So if there was no internet and you only heard music on the radio you would never buy a CD? Don't radios give you an idea of what's on a CD? How about retailers that let you listen to any CD for free?

Edit: Anyway..You guys decide what's right and what's wrong for you. The law states that it's wrong to download music from the internet without permission from the artist or publisher. If you are ok with breaking that law then it's you're choice. Nobody is perfect.

[2strokebloke]

Well at least Publishers aren't shutting down libraries for lending books to people, and letting people make copies.
If the recording industry in the U.S. were as smart...
One question however, what if an album has not been availble new for years, or the band that recorded the song no longer exists. Is it still wrong to download their music? Or have somebody make a copy for you?
I don't think so. I'm sure the artists of the former band really wouldn't care much - and doubt the record company would really think it was worth their time getting money out of you.
Also, if it's wrong to download music for free - what's right about sueing somebody for millions of dollars for downloading a fraction of an album, that in complete form would have cost $12 to $15?
Who's being stolen from then? Who's the burglar?

[replicant_008]

Apparently this is an ethical and legal question.

When you purchase music - you are effectively purchasing a licence for personal use of the intellectual property of the recording artist, the songwriter and the studio/label. This is a transferable licence - you can sell the music but once you transfer it you are legally obligated to destroy any copies that you have in your possession.

This licence enables you to make backup copies on other formats but does not extend to making unauthorised copies, distributing them without forwarding royalties or playing the music in public (eg in a bar or cafe you should legally be paying a royalty.)

By downloading music, whether it be bootlegs or unauthorised copies you infringe the rights of the parties who assert ownership of the intellectual property.

In law and ethics, it's very much like the principal of trademarks and patents - someone used their money, sweat equity, technology or knowhow to develop something that you use.

Erosion of these rights marginalises the decision to invest - which for instance means we have had about 2 anti-biotics come to market in the past 20 odd years compared to dozens of dieting and anti-depressants. It makes more sense for companies to sell you these drugs for the next 20 years than spend billions coming up with some anti-biotic you will use for maybe 2 weeks (irrespective of the fact that it could probably save thousands of lives) simply because some other company gets to make generics not long afterward that reduce the payoff for developing new therapies.

In the recording industry, I expected that the diversity of artists would have improved with technology which enabled high quality production values at a fraction of the price - but what we are seeing is artists ending up in debt to the studios who don't get to see a decent return. I know some local artists and they have to do day jobs like you and I to feed, house and clothe themselves despite making bloody enjoyable recordings.

About the only weapon the industry has is to use a deterrent approach to litigation ie find someone who infringes, prove it and make an example of them ie sue the crap out of them and hope that others will be 'deterred' from doing so. It's a complete nuke 'em and hope the other lemmings take cover approach - they tried the softly softly approach but going after people wallets changes their minds quicker.

From my point of view, I have spent a long time and much cash building up my photographic gear and lots of time travelling and taking photos of places. I'll be damned if I am simply going to let some person simply rip off the photos for their own gain or enjoyment without my permission.

[originalmike]

Originally Posted by Spec2 Girl

Don’t think I’ve seen that one. What did they think of it?

Well, at first the boys decided to start a band named moop, and for inspiration they wanted to buy a bunch of CD's. But they're parents wouldn't give them the money so Kenny said you could download free music off of the internet. So as soon as they do that a swat team comes rushing in and arrests the kids. When the swat team leader guy questions them they say that they didn't think it was a big deal. Then to show the evil of their ways, the swat team leader shows them what their downloading has done. First they go see Britney Spears crying next to her private jet because she couldn't afford the bigger model with surround sound dvd system. Then they go see some other celebrity on her sons b-day and he is sad because his parents weren't able to afford to buy his own island in the carribean like he wanted.
The boys are terribly distrought by this so they decide to stop making music altogether until people stop downloading music. A lot of other famous people join them but at the end they realize that it doesn't matter if you re making money as lon as you're doing what you love, but the all the famouse artists say they don't care and they are in the business for the money.

Originally Posted by DGB454

Perhaps you should look up the word honar,honor,behavorist and behaviorist.

:gets out dictionary: damnit!