Thread: Music Piracy

I don't think it's a 'fair game'. But I do it all the time, so I chose option 2.

The fact is that it costs artists money. The big artists that is; U2, the Chili Peppers, Linkin Park, 50 Cent....those artists DO lose out on money, there's no arguing that.

But who wants to download that crap anyways?

The vast majority of music I download is up and coming indie bands who need the exposure anyways. I've spent a TON of cash on CDs, concert tickets and band merch that I never would have if it wasn't for downloading.

However, I do have a problem with people who download songs/albums and don't contribute to the industry in any way. If you like a band, support em. No, this doesn't have to be finanically, recommending the music to your friends or coming into DV and naming them in the "Songs you should listen to thread" counts.

Artists are putting time, effort and money into their projects, it's only fair that they get something in return, be it money or exposure.

Finally, I live in Canada. Downloading is legal, it's distributing that gets you in trouble.

We did actually have this topic before, and it got a little out of hand at one point. Just a head's up.

Anyway, being that most of the music I download is from Japan, and I don't have a firstborn to give up for the shipping costs of importing a CD, I pirate. In fact, I pirate with wild abandon. I'm not ashamed of it.

If there is an artist that I find I'm enjoying a lot, I will most definately spend my hard-earned cash on their stuff. In fact, if I did have that much money, you can bet I'd be importing Gackt, L'arc en Ciel, and Pierrot CDs like the end of the world was tomorrow.

If I don't like a band, or if I like one or two songs, I keep the mp3s and that's that. No one is losing money if I wasn't going to buy their CD anyway.

And I don't even want to start on rich, big name bands because most of them own three mansions in various exotic places all over the world and a multitude of cars. Why should my $40 matter to them?

I don't necessarily think that it is fair game, but I do download all of the time. Most of the things I download are things that aren't being distributed anymore. A lot of Moody Blues stuff just isn't for sale anymore.....So, I download. I also download a lot of stuff I have bought before and lost, etc. I admit, I download a lot of things that I can buy in stores, had I twenty dollars to spend on a single album. But usually, I don't. A lot of the bands I listnen to are bands that support downloading because it supports the band essentially, such as my favorite band, KISS. Bands like them have a huge following that isn't going to be hurt by a few downloaded songs. Most of their fans would buy the music as well as download it.

the only time i buy a cd is if the artist is struggling to break through, has a smaller esoteric following, and isn't already insanely rich.

i try to always think of money as a portion of people's lives. (investment of time=money).

hence, if a starving artist spends a couple years perfecting an incredible album that only a select few get, i could never steal a portion of their life and be able to enjoy it. i buy the album, and know that an hour i was working some shitty job helped to produce musical art.

however, if an artist has already made it, and never has to work another day in their life if they don't want to, why should i give them an hour of my life so they can buy a drink at some highend bar?

I only buy a CD after looking for downloads. The big artists only spend it on something totally stupidly expensive, such as a £5000 pimp stick or a gold, diamond & ruby encrusted PSP

I don't buy most music because it's simply hard to get here, but I still think that the music business is too capitlalistic.

I think it's important to remember the little guy in all of this. The guys and gals who make an average life by doing an average job at a big corporation like BMG, Columbia or Sony.

Sure the rock star doesn't need an extra few bucks, there's a lot more than that going into an album.

Also, Not all 'rock stars' fit your stereotypes. The lead singer of a world famous metal band called Dream Theatre (James LaBrie) lives in my home town and I know some of the family quite well. He doesn't buy Escalades and gold encrusted PSPs and houses in the caribbean. He lives in a nice house in a nice small town and is married to nice lady. He estimates his personal losses last year at $300,000 due to piracy.

That's a lot of coin to anybody.

whoa, small world. i love dream theater..often their liner art moreso than their music.

i think a starving artist is a lot more charming than one who can make ends meet. then you know it has nothing to do with money if they keep it up, but instead it's entirely about the music itself.

Originally posted by bradybaker
I think it's important to remember the little guy in all of this. The guys and gals who make an average life by doing an average job at a big corporation like BMG, Columbia or Sony.

Sure the rock star doesn't need an extra few bucks, there's a lot more than that going into an album.

Also, Not all 'rock stars' fit your stereotypes. The lead singer of a world famous metal band called Dream Theatre (James LaBrie) lives in my home town and I know some of the family quite well. He doesn't buy Escalades and gold encrusted PSPs and houses in the caribbean. He lives in a nice house in a nice small town and is married to nice lady. He estimates his personal losses last year at $300,000 due to piracy.

That's a lot of coin to anybody.

Yeah sorry, I was generalising all the artists into one group. But when I see all these shows on MTV like cribs, I see that alot of them spend it on crap, so I don't really feel much empathy towards them, dispite the fact that not all of them do so.

There's no doubt in my mind that piracy is wrong, but I do it anyway.

Originally posted by Asher
liner art

Another great reason to buy albums.

Music piracy: The rich people sell a bit less albums. They still become stinking rich from concerts and other earnings. Less famous / starting bands have more chance to get famous. 'Piracy' is good for artists.

Movie piracy: Nothing beats the real cinema. However, movie piracy might be bad for DVD sales. Movie piracy might be a bit more 'bad'.

Software piracy: Console games are hard to download. PC games... well if fucking EA wouldn't have taken over EVERYONE, mabye there would be some more games that arn't toally focusing on grapics. Most games these day sucks so hard, becouse stupid people started to play videogames aswell. I would buy a good game, if someone would Make it.

Ninja piracy: Pirates are so much more cool.

it's sad that corporations take over everything like they do. music is something that should be available for everyone and i am 100% behind music piracy. if i played music as a profession i would be gladfully handing out free music no matter how big my music was. to me its all about the music and not about the money. i grew up downloading music and couldn't imagine it being any different. i can't think of how much music i would've missed out on and tens of thousands of songs i never would've heard. btw i do buy CDs just because i like collecting them but without music piracy life wouldn't be the same for me. hopefully it'll even put some of the mainstream crap out of business and make room for some real music

Originally posted by bradybaker
I think it's important to remember the little guy in all of this. The guys and gals who make an average life by doing an average job at a big corporation like BMG, Columbia or Sony.

Sure the rock star doesn't need an extra few bucks, there's a lot more than that going into an album.

Also, Not all 'rock stars' fit your stereotypes. The lead singer of a world famous metal band called Dream Theatre (James LaBrie) lives in my home town and I know some of the family quite well. He doesn't buy Escalades and gold encrusted PSPs and houses in the caribbean. He lives in a nice house in a nice small town and is married to nice lady. He estimates his personal losses last year at $300,000 due to piracy.

That's a lot of coin to anybody.

Well, I know there are little guys out there, as Dream Theatre (which is an awesome band) and I know that by pirating I affect those people. It is sad, and not very thoughtful and destructive.....But lets face it. When I don't have money I don't have it to spend especially not on an album. When I do, it is a different story, but I refuse to go without good music when I am poor.

I feel like the bands that are against free-downloading of their music (for example, Metallica), hurt their reputation to a certain degree. They certainly don't need the extra money to survive and having their music widely available lets more people hear it, thereby increasing their fan base, and thereby selling more concert tickets and other things. I think they really screwed themselves acting like they've got rock-star sticks up their butts. (But I still like Metallica's music...).

I don't like metallica, I like the music they make. The people in the band are a bunch of wanna-be-gothic faggy attention-whoring kapatalist idiots.

But they make funny music ^___^

I do agree, they screw themselves. Allso, making music is about getting as many people as you can to like you music, the more people know your music, the more people you can make happy with music. And if you have a message, that message allso reaches more people.

Piracy is totally inline with the idea of music. You don't make music to make money, you make it to entertain yourself, but especially others.

I think the main problem, is the lack of insentive to buy CD's

When was the last time you bought a cd and were actually happy with the purchase?
it costs too much for what they are
an 'album' can be as little as 45 mins of songs (usually with a lot of filler tracks - skits and other misc crap)
all the screwy copy protection means it's hit & miss as to whether you can rip cd's to your computer
some older cd players are defeated by copy protection

in all honesty, by and large, you are buying a defective product

This is where I have great respect for independant punk labels
when you buy one of their cd's
you discover the cd insert cover is actually a wacking great big poster
with other goodies stuffed inside the case

thats how you combat piracy
make buying the music more worthwhile
not crippling the cd to any player over 3 years old, or any other devious, under-hand tactic

Originally posted by Ynot

This is where I have great respect for independant punk labels
when you buy one of their cd's
you discover the cd insert cover is actually a wacking great big poster
with other goodies stuffed inside the case

thats how you combat piracy

Yes, true. A downloaded CD is allmost as good as a plain one from the shop. However if you get some cool stuff, or they did Something to make you feel like you bought a piece of the Band. Then, it's worth buying.

I really agree with Ynot. A CD costs like 20 dollars. Usually, there are a couple of good songs, and then the rest is crap. So, why should I spend my hard earned dollars on a cd that I can't even copy (depending on copy protecion) or use on my CD player, (depending what kind it is). Getting more for your money is definately an issue.

As for downloading the music...I can't feel too bad about it when that person is essentially giving me their music, when I download it. Fair use, right? If someone wants to give away a couple of shirts that they bought at a nearby Wal-Mart, it's essentially the same thing. They bought it, and are doing what they want with it. Why is it different with music? It's someone else's idea, yeah....But so was the design for the shirt. If you say that you can't give away your own music, you have to say that you cannot give away anything that you,as a consumer, bought. Someone had to buy the music to begin with anyway, to put it on the net. The input for any product is an idea. Anytime you give away anything, it came from an idea. A song is no different.

A CD costs like 20 dollars. Usually, there are a couple of good songs, and then the rest is crap.[/b]

That really depends on the artist. In the last few months I've paid for 9 or 10 albums, none of which fit that description.

If someone wants to give away a couple of shirts that they bought at a nearby Wal-Mart, it's essentially the same thing. They bought it, and are doing what they want with it. Why is it different with music? It's someone else's idea, yeah....But so was the design for the shirt. If you say that you can't give away your own music, you have to say that you cannot give away anything that you,as a consumer, bought.[/b]

A more fitting analogy would be:
You go get the last fashion from <insert store you like here>, bring it home, throw it in your Star Trek-style replicator, make an unlimited number of copies, then throw the copies into your Star Trek-style transporter and send them to anyone and everyone in the world who may want it.

In the case of music distribution, the original consumer still has a copy of the original product and millions of copies can be made and sent to millions of people in the blink of an eye. That's the difference and that's why we have copyright laws.

Originally posted by bradybaker

A CD costs like 20 dollars. Usually, there are a couple of good songs, and then the rest is crap.

That really depends on the artist. In the last few months I've paid for 9 or 10 albums, none of which fit that description.

If someone wants to give away a couple of shirts that they bought at a nearby Wal-Mart, it's essentially the same thing. They bought it, and are doing what they want with it. Why is it different with music? It's someone else's idea, yeah....But so was the design for the shirt. If you say that you can't give away your own music, you have to say that you cannot give away anything that you,as a consumer, bought.[/b]

A more fitting analogy would be:
You go get the last fashion from <insert store you like here>, bring it home, throw it in your Star Trek-style replicator, make an unlimited number of copies, then throw the copies into your Star Trek-style transporter and send them to anyone and everyone in the world who may want it.

In the case of music distribution, the original consumer still has a copy of the original product and millions of copies can be made and sent to millions of people in the blink of an eye. That's the difference and that's why we have copyright laws.[/b]

Here in KY, in the US (you live in Canada right?) the cheapest I have ever bought a CD (album) was 14$. The highest was 25$. Even at 14, I don't have the money to spend on a full cd full of crap with one good song.

And someone still had to buy that original piece. If they aren't making money off of it, I can't see what the real deal is. Usually, the record companies get most of the money off of the music they have deals with. Artists pretty much get screwed by their record companies. Why don't they do away with record companies and set up their own individual sites that sell their music? If record companies were out of the picture, people would not have to pay as much for music, and the artist would make all of the profit. Everyone wins.


Also, for those, such as myself (for the most part) that don't mind paying a few cents for a song can go to allofmp3.com and download till' their hearts content without spending way too much. It's totally legal. In Russia, where this site is based, they don't have those outrageous fees and such on music. Check it out. It is totally worth it.

I haven't read all of the post, but I didn't see this, so Ill make my little point with one sentence.

"Im not wasting 14-20 bucks on a Album, of which I only like 3-4 Songs."

( Thats only a good CD =O )

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Here in KY, in the US (you live in Canada right?) the cheapest I have ever bought a CD (album) was 14$. The highest was 25$. Even at 14, I don't have the money to spend on a full cd full of crap with one good song.

When I said the albums I bought didn't fit the description, I didn't mean CDs are cheaper up here (I've paid anywhere from $12-29). I meant that there are plenty of albums that are completely enjoyable from start to finish.

Unfortunately those bands don't get much airplay.

And even if the songs don't seem so great on the first listen, they generally get better over time. Often I buy a CD for a group of 4 or 5 songs, listen to them for a few months and find that the other songs have way more appeal than they did at first.

Anyways, this is all moot. iTunes has all your favorite music and you can download the songs individually.

Either way, I'm not saying you shouldn't download (I'm a torrent fiend). I'm just saying that it's wrong.

Originally posted by bradybaker

When I said the albums I bought didn't fit the description, I didn't mean CDs are cheaper up here (I've paid anywhere from $12-29). I meant that there are plenty of albums that are completely enjoyable from start to finish.

Unfortunately those bands don't get much airplay.



And even if the songs don't seem so great on the first listen, they generally get better over time. Often I buy a CD for a group of 4 or 5 songs, listen to them for a few months and find that the other songs have way more appeal than they did at first.

Anyways, this is all moot. iTunes has all your favorite music and you can download the songs individually.

Either way, I'm not saying you shouldn't download (I'm a torrent fiend). I'm just saying that it's wrong.

Sorry. I misunderstood. Lol. I do agree that most of the CDs I have purchused were pretty good CDs, but there are still a few I regretted having bought, because I felt as though it were a waste of money. iTunes is an OK resouce, but all of mp3 is a lot cheaper and you can buy the songs individually, also. If it's easier to buy the song, I usually do. Anyway, I know that it isn't especially right to do, but I do anyway..As you, I am a torrent fiend.