I don’t want people incriminating themselves, but who thinks it’s an acceptable action within todays digital age, and who thinks it’s basically theft from the artists?

Personally I have no problem paying for stuff.

It’s theft pure and simple… anyone who argues otherwise is deluding themselves… it’s the same as nicking a CD/DVD direct from a store is it not?

I may have done it a lot in the past, but almost always for rare recordings that have never been for sale. Maybe I once might have done it for some v expensive software.

… it’s the same as nicking a CD/DVD direct from a store is it not?

Or ripping a copy of a CD/DVD/Software if you don’t own the original.

It’s theft pure and simple

i’m not saying its morally correct, but you’re taking a copy of something so its not theft. The original still exists.

I’d like to hear Elfin’s stance on this

If the technology exists to download/rip it, the artists should protect their work to prevent it from being downloaded/ripped. I’m not too sure it’s the artists that have a problem with the download/ripping problem but the record companies and distributor who have missed an opportunity and are now bleating.
I have downloaded and I’ve had my work downloaded. That’s life!

No moral problem with downloading music, if I like it I’ll go to a gig, buy an album and a t-shirt, the band will get their money off me anyway. If I don’t enjoy their stuff I’m not throwing money down the drain.

If the technology exists to download/rip it, the artists should protect their work to prevent it from being downloaded/ripped

So if someone nicks your bike it’s your fault because it was possible for them to nick it?

Twenty years ago the record companies didn’t have an ethical issue with charging £12.99 for a CD that cost £1 to make. Now they’re screaming foul because people don’t want to pay over the odds for music.

Anyway, good music is where you find it. The internet has been an excellent platform for getting previously unsigned bands music out there which cannot be a bad thing – the consumer is driving demand, not the record companies who are selling something completely formulaic.

it’s the same as nicking a CD/DVD direct from a store is it not?

Not really, no. A CD/DVD costs money to produce, ship and keep in a shop on top of the cost of making the recording. Digital downloads don’t have those extra costs. Media companies persist in pushing that analogy despite the fact it’s so obviously not true. The profit on a digital download is far higher than that of a CD and in some cases, emerging artists don’t get as much of a share of the digital sales either.

I’d like to hear Elfin’s stance on this

I’m sure you would. However, I’m off down the pub for Sunday Lunch. 8)

I’m not too sure it’s the artists that have a problem with the download/ripping problem but the record companies and distributor who have missed an opportunity and are now bleating.

So the artists have no problem with getting no money from their work?

Hairy – you go to a gig of every band you’ve d/l’ed and liked?

Sorry, I don’t believe you.

If you want to know if you like something, there’s Spotify & Youtube for that.

Fred – I suppose you came over all tired last night, when you managed to congratulate TJ on his snide dig at me, yet didn’t have the balls to answer my question.

Twenty years ago the record companies didn’t have an ethical issue with charging £12.99 for a CD that cost £1 to make. Now they’re screaming foul because people don’t want to pay over the odds for music.

Oil companies don’t seem to have many ethics (ignoring government tax for now) about ripping us off for fuel – should we go and syphon some tanks?

Oil companies don’t seem to have many ethics (ignoring government tax for now) about ripping us off for fuel – should we go and syphon some tanks?

Erm, no…I don’t recall suggesting that ripping off music was the right thing to do – read my second paragraph.

Secondly, the analogy with oil companies is bunk – why do you think oil is expensive compared to twenty years ago?

if you siphon fuel tanks, the original owner no longer has use of the fuel. not so with a download. but then you knew that.

Hmmm. The goal posts have definitely shifted. When I was starting out as a photographer I used to cover the British University ski and snowboard comps. The day after the photos were delivered to the organisers, I’d see my photos all over facebook. It annoyed the piss out of me so the next year, I watermarked the websized pics but the organisers handed out the full size images to anyone who asked.

These days, I have come to accept that any photos on the net are fair game, whether I like it or not. Similar to unsigned bands, it’s all about advertising and getting your name out there, if managed properly.

iDave – Member
if you siphon fuel tanks, the original owner no longer has use of the fuel. not so with a download. but then you knew that.

That analagy is worse than my original one – on that basis, the artist should only be able to sell one recording. Or if it’s digital, is it not real?

So the artists have no problem with getting no money from their work?

Millionaire Robbie Williams didn’t. 😉

So if someone nicks your bike it’s your fault because it was possible for them to nick it?

Yes.
If I leave it on the street without a lock, I’m making it easy and the whole world will be tempted, it will then be a personal decision.
If I use a cheap lock, you’re making it a bit more difficult and the number of people prepared to nick it will be less as they need to invest either time or money for tools to nick it.
An expensive lock and the pool of theives gets smaller.
Locked in my garage, smaller again.
Locked in a safe inside my Fort Knox style house, and very few people will go to the trouble to nick it.

So you deserve to have it nicked if you don’t secure it?

Isn’t that the same as saying the bloke that takes it, deserves to have it, because the owner didn’t take care of it?

What a load of crap.

So you deserve to have it nicked if you don’t secure it?

I didn’t say that, did I?

I still think the analogy is bunk…music isn’t mountain bikes, nor is it petrol. Digital music doesn’t have a physical form, if you steal a bike it’s a crime against the person who paid for it in the first instance, not against the company who made the bike and who retails it at a substantial mark up.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but I do think the analogies are far too simplistic and not subjective enough.

Hairy – you go to a gig of every band you’ve d/l’ed and liked?

I actually do, but I don’t like that much anyway 🙂
The only band I like(d) and never saw was Nirvana but it’s not my fault they don’t play, is it?

I still think the analogy is bunk…music isn’t mountain bikes, nor is it petrol.

As a victim of this type of theft, I actually do consider the analogy valid. The thief gets the benefit of usage without paying, therefore I have to make it more and more difficult for people to download and use without permission.

You seem to be going round in circles trying to justify your argument don.

So, if something is unsecured, should it, or shouldn’t it be taken without the owners permission?

Words of one syllable for you… 🙄
If it is easy to steal, more people with steal it and the owner has a problem
If you don’t want it stolen, secure it.

A door is and honest man’s deterrent.

¿Comprende?

¿Comprende?

Non.
Surely the morality of actually taking the item is not affected by the level of security.

i’d like to steal an upside down question mark

¿really?

Surely the morality of actually taking the item is not affected by the level of security.

Yes there is the moral question too, which is why I said that a door is an honest man’s deterrent.

If you find a fiver on the floor, what do you do?

For iDave. ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ (feel free to take one as they have no copyright protection).
I’ve got some of these ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ too.

If you find a fiver on the floor, what do you do?

It doesn’t happen to me that often, but for your info last time it did I put it in the collection box for the RNLI. Should I have left it on the shop floor ?

I fail to see the relevance of that question though.

Words of one syllable for you too don.

Do..you..think..it’s..fine..to..take..what..aint..yours?

You argue that something should be secured otherwise it will be taken, something which you admit doing, yet won’t answer the moralistic question of whether it’s right to do so or not.

It’s not hard is it, simple question, non?

Downloads are all low quality. Not worth a bean IMHO.

Buy the CD if you want a proper copy!

Anyone know where I can get a good free download of Follow Me and Life Cycles..?

Are we talking in general or about me? You appeared to have asked a general question and now have singled it down to me.
I download.
Is it wrong legally? Yes, the law says so.
Morally? I download.
Do people download from my site? Yes.
What do I do? I make it a less attractive option.
What happened? Sales went up. Go figure.
Now the general answer and the relevance of the fiver, if there are less barriers to prevent the theft, people are more likely to take.
Why did the banks and post offices chain the pens to the counters?

Anything else my sweet?
¡Por cierto, no entiendo francés!

Downloads are all low quality. Not worth a bean IMHO.

😆

You entered into the debate more than others don (and took the decision to start patronising, with your ‘one syllable’ nonsense above), ergo I address you personally. Feeling picked on?

Morally? I download.

Rather ambiguous.

Morally I think its wrong, we have no right to download the content.
But for the record, I have done.

Feeling picked on?

No, I’m just trying to decypher your questions to see which ones are directed at me and which ones are general. Do you feel patronised?

Rather ambiguous.

Morally I think its wrong, we have no right to download the content.
But for the record, I have done.

Yayyyyyyyyyy! Now you understand my point (I think). Whether I think it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant, because it is so easy, I’ll do it. If it was more difficult or I needed specialist equipment, I wouldn’t.