To follow on from nbt's post above, I don't think in the absolutes zokes is applying to the argument, but whatever it is, you're not paying for it and this depriving the artist of what he might deserve for producing it. And that seems wrong.
My moral compass once pointed to torrents all the way but when I had a think about it, I stopped.
Who amongst us hasn't watched a copied film at some stage or taped music from the radio or lent a video of something we've recorded to a mate? If you haven't, then yeah, occupy the high ground.
Either way, sharing has changed the way that artists approach their audience and IMO, has been good in lots of ways (eventually). Bands have to go out and your lots more these days as that's how they can really make money. Now...the price of flipping concert tickets...don't get me started on those.
martinhutch - Member
If the record industry dies on its arse due to piracy, will we simply be left with people who write and record music simply for the love of it and wanting to share that with others, rather than rubbish bands and artists whose sole focus is record deals and stadium tours?There have always been very talented people out there who are unable to 'monetise' their work. This would actually level the playing field while handily disposing of several million tons of manufactured shite
This is very untrue. I agree no one will cry if Justin Bieber can't make a living anymore - but there are lots and lots or artists that just "get by" - making money touring, selling their music etc. You would be suprised how many bands are barely able to keep going
Grizzly Bear are a relatively high profile band who claim not to be able to afford health insurance
[url= http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/121002hardscrabble ]link[/url]
If they all had to get day jobs - they wouldn't be able to buy equipment, they wouldn't be able to spend as mush time writing and recording, they wouldn't be able to get time off to tour. I don't want my music to be made exclusively by bedroom musicians.
This argument is not about manufactured music - this will always exist. It's about keeping the good stuff
www.soundcloud.com
DJ's rather than artists mainly but some up and coming artists - most of its free and legit.
If illegally downloading files is stealing or theft, then the police would get involved, and there would be criminal charges brought against people who did it - as it stands, there are not, and never have been charges of stealing or theft brought against people who download illegally, or even those who distribute illegally - in both cases, the charges are on the basis of copyright infringement.
Theft is the misappropriation of real and tangible things, in order for it to be considered in this light then it would have to mean that the wronged party no longer has the thing which the other party does - given that in the context of digital downloads it can easily be the case that both parties can remain in possession of the disputed thing, it's not theft.
This isn't to say that it's morally ok to download illegally, just that it's shrieking hysteria to call it theft.
By US law if you're redistributing commercially or redistribute more than $1000 worth in something like 180 days then it's a criminal offence, otherwise it's civil. Not sure what the UK boundaries are but I'm fairly sure it can be criminal if you're redistributing commercially.
Spotify is fine for previewing music, but artists get a pittance from them so don't kid yourself that it's a substitute for buying music
I spend more money on Spotify than I've regularly spent on music in my life. We've got 2 full accounts in the house so chuck £20 a month at it. The idea that I'd go out and buy those 50 albums I'm listening to in the month is absolute rubbish. Spend most of my time trying new artists that would get £0 off me were it not for spotify.
Don't kid yourself that it's piracy because it's cheap and easy, the more people who use Spotify, the more money there is in the pot. Artists get about 0.1p per play of their track, I'll merrily listen to music ALL day, 5 days a week, so that's about £3-4 directly to the artists. More than they'd get directly if I bought a CD, given all the costs associated.
The last album I bought was in the late 90s.
By US law if you're redistributing commercially or redistribute more than $1000 worth in something like 180 days then it's a criminal offence, otherwise it's civil. Not sure what the UK boundaries are but I'm fairly sure it can be criminal if you're redistributing commercially.
But not of theft.
This is very untrue. I agree no one will cry if Justin Bieber can't make a living anymore - but there are lots and lots or artists that just "get by" - making money touring, selling their music etc. You would be suprised how many bands are barely able to keep goingGrizzly Bear are a relatively high profile band who claim not to be able to afford health insurance
link
If they all had to get day jobs - they wouldn't be able to buy equipment, they wouldn't be able to spend as mush time writing and recording, they wouldn't be able to get time off to tour. I don't want my music to be made exclusively by bedroom musicians.
This argument is not about manufactured music - this will always exist. It's about keeping the good stuff
I agree with you to a certain extent, but I guess the point I would make is that there will always be a significant spend by the public on music, even in an era where the vast majority of music is pirated.
If fewer record company artists are available to attract that cash because the record industry and its methods of promotion have withered, it perhaps becomes more likely that smaller, better bands like the one you mentioned will find ways to be better known, attract a greater share of any revenue out there, and bigger live audiences.
Only a hypothesis, but at the moment you have mainstream acts promoted by industry sucking up all but a small fraction of public spend on music.
Theft is the misappropriation of real and tangible things, in order for it to be considered in this light then it would have to mean that the wronged party no longer has the thing which the other party does - given that in the context of digital downloads it can easily be the case that both parties can remain in possession of the disputed thing, it's not theft.
So, to go back to stealing from shops, one assumes people who steal CDs / DVDs are only held accountable for the 20 pence-worth of blank disk and case? And the remainder of the worth is down to the copyright holder to pursue through the civil courts?
After all, the only tangible thing that's been physically removed is the disk and its case, not the content, as
the artist/record company still holds the master copy
Please, can we just let Zokes be right? Yes, it's stealing. Cool.
Yes, it's stealing. Cool.
Thank you.
its all about greed
people want to pay as little as possible for music
the music companies wanted to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible
no zokes it's different, theft would be seen by the courts as theft from the retailer (not artist) of an item of their stock at a value of £20, which the retailer has paid for and owns.
So, to go back to stealing from shops, one assumes people who steal CDs / DVDs are only held accountable for the 20 pence-worth of blank disk and case? And the remainder of the worth is down to the copyright holder to pursue through the civil courts?After all, the only tangible thing that's been physically removed is the disk and its case, not the content, as
the artist/record company still holds the master copy
The theft isn't from the artist/record company, the theft is from the retail outlet, so the fact the master copy resides with them is a moot point.
Theft in that context is based on the fact that the retailer did have possession of something which they no longer have. Guilt with regards theft isn't on the basis of the value of the goods - the punishment may well come down to it (although not always) but the guilt or otherwise is unaffected.
Did I miss the answers to my earlier post trying to define exactly was is stealing and what isn't?
Following on from that slightly, I was also wondering whether it's still stealing if you copy a CD that you own onto your MP3 player of choice... as I don't know if people are aware, this is also classed as illegal under exactly the same law that would have you for downloading music from t'interweb in the UK at present. Although I do believe the government has proposed a change in the law for this, but only for music, and that it will still be illegal for DVDs and games etc...
Now I do hope none of you naughty people have been doing any of that sort of thing... 😉
I bought a CD the other day. First time I've done that for many years.
I'll download stuff I can't buy. Record companies can't bloody complain if they don't offer to sell me something, surely?
It was the Stooges first album by the way. The CD I bought.
To the OP, have a look at Spotify, it has an app you can use on your iPod and syncs stuff pretty well. Can't argue for a tenner a month. I use it at home, on my phone and at work.
