This is my big question from the Oink debate.
Don't get me wrong - I totally understand people downloading music for free. It's free, it's there and you can hear albums before they're released. I can totally get people doing it for these reasons and obviously I think it's now far too late for anything to change so people will continue to download for free. So I really have no problem at all with someone who says "well, I wanted this song, I knew I could get it for free so I got it for free. I know I'm not supposed to do it but I decided I would anyway".
But what I don't get is the constant self-justifications that people come out with. If you want something for nothing, can get it for nothing and choose to take it then that's entirely your decision. But I hate people pretending they're morally justified in doing so.
Exactly
i have to agree
i download a lot, and i will defend downloading in general to people who insist it's evil, because i think it does have a lot of advantages for both musicians and fans. but, when i download an album and don't get around to buying it, i won't try to justify that. it's probably a bad thing to do. but i'll keep doing it anyway.
There are moral justifications
Whether they apply to most of the people who use them is another issue.
bf
I suppose you're right, but I swear to god the only things I've downloaded are Beach Boys bootlegs, psych and freakbeat stuff which isn't really owned by anyone anymore, and the OCCASIONAL new thing that I want to check out- but I don't even do that now everyone has a myspace...
This came up in the other thread
but it's in the relative perceptions of music as a physical product (CD/vinyl) and music as a 'licence to listen' if you ask me.
Not everyone appreciates music in the same way as 95% of the people on here do, and to these people (probably a significant minority of under 40's, and the majority of over 40's, I'd say) there's a vast gulf in the perceived value of these two things.
It's also because of that age old issue: if I steal this loaf of bread, I'm denying the shopkeeper a sale. If I 'steal' this CD, it's not gone from the shelf. Basically, "I wasn't going to buy it otherwise." It's a huge psychological factor (and fits in quite nicely with research done on morals and logic). That'd be an interesting study to do, actually, if any psychology undergraduates are looking for a final year project..
it proves they're just a bit ashamed of what they do
and have the need to prove themselves justified.
And then they can complain when their favourite illegal download site is closing.
It's funny to remember than 20 years ago, the sam was happening with video games.
Pirates keep telling that :
1. games were too expensive
2. too much games were crap, it was needed to try them.
3. it's free, why should I pay for it ?
Now the same people are buying a new console each year and pay more than 40£ for a game...
That's a baffling comparison.
The price of games is high because of spiralling development costs due to increasingly long development cycles, and platform-specific publishing fees. This is pretty solid fact.
And if that were true, PC games would be the most expensive of all; as it stands, they're the cheapest, and still the most easily pirated.
I'm not comparing the 'products'
just the way people reacted to them at a certain time.
And it's actually very similar, with the same kind of excuses used !
But the reasons for the
price increase are nothing to do piracy. The psychological responses to it might have been, but the effects were pretty much the opposite of what you just said.
You misunderstood me.
I never linked price increase and piracy ( even if at that time the software companies were balming pirates for the prices ).
What I said is : at a certain time, software piracy was even more common than illegal music download, with the pirates giving the same justification for their acts at both times. It was even said that video games industry was dying ( same thing is now said for music industry ). And look now ! They've managed to convince people it's normal to spend 40-50£ for games and are one of the most owerful industry !
Ahhh
apologies; I totally see where you were going, now. I thought you were making a point about how piracy was to blame for rising costs and that. Forgiverness prease!
Interesting point in there though: piracy is pretty much the sole reason that some consoles survive in certain territories..
no problem. I just wasn't very clear.
Industry needs piracy till a certain point. It's a promotion that can be as good as many others.
Problem is when the % of people buying afterwards is becoming too small !
Aye, and it is definately interesting that
the games industry has been able to power its way through all froms of piracy over the last 20 years, while the music industry is buckling to it (or so we are to believe).
It's going to be a fascinating few years..
yes it will...
The kind of justifications on the Torrentfreak website forum
make me sick.
It's wrong, people do it but it's still wrong so stop trying to justify it with some kind of 'pirate's code'!
What you're downloading
is a very pure form of art, without packaging, that is of a lower quality than what you'd get if you bought the music on CD or vinyl. I don't see any difference between libraries and illegal downloading.
Art shouldn't revolve around money. It's too important for that. Somebody with no expendable income should be able to read books, hear records and see visual art. It's nigh-on essential.
It's interesting how almost all bands interested in stopping downloading make awful, faceless music. Makes you wonder what made them pick up their instruments in the first place.
This attitude really annoys me
Just because Lars Ulrich got his knickers in a twist about Napster people and happens to be a twat people that try and justify downloading argue that it's only the Metallicas and Madonnas of this world who are anti-piracy, and they don't need any more private jets right? Why doesn't someone who's makes music for a living deserved to be paid a decent wage for it.
As for 'art shouldn't revolve around money', do you think Damian Hurst selflessly donates his art to galleries so that we can see it for free? No, he get's paid a tidy sum. As for libraries if you borrow a book then it's not yours to keep and re-read if you so desire, if you borrow a CD then you shouldn't copy it. It's exactly the same as downloading. I'm not saying I've never done it but at least admit that it's wrong.
That first sentence makes no sense
I was too angry, sorry.
No
I'm not referring only to famous names. I'm also talking about people I know in bands who get all uppity about it and you just think 'who cares?'. Loads of people make fantastic music at a loss. It's not what it's about, and if it is you're most likely shit.
And I don't personally see Damian Hirst getting paid as proof that he should be paid. But if people want to pay an artist to show their appreciation, that's a different thing entirely. It shouldn't be obligatory.
And yeah, the library is different because you only borrow the book, but you can read the whole thing and take it out as many times as you want. It's not the same as owning it, but nor's downloading, because of the decreased quality and the fact that all you're getting is a few heavily-compressed sound files, which don't have the same value as a record itself, in my opinion.
As for 'Why doesn't someone who's makes music for a living deserved to be paid a decent wage for it?', surely the question is the other way round? Why does he or she deserve to? I don't see it as a job, and I largely find artists who do make very boring music.
Actually
I've never heard a remotely compelling argument for why mp3 files should cost money. I'd love to hear some efforts. As that's what this comes down to.
MP3s
Contain the music that someone worked hard to create for your listening pleasure. Whether it comes from a CD player or an Ipod is utterly irrelevant. Yes they should be much cheaper than CDs because of the reduced sound quality and lack of printed lyrics (although artwork is usually available online). iTunes is way too expensive, Emusic is brilliant. Now where's your compelling argument for why they shouldn't cost money?
So
your argument is basically 'someone worked hard to make it'? Fine, that should be enough. The satisfaction you get from that is worth more than money to any serious artist. Again, if you want to pay an artist by way of appreciation, that's fine. But it needn't be obligatory every time you want to listen to music.
It basically says that someone on minimum wage should not be allowed to be an avid music fan.
And I hope you pay every time you listen to a song on Myspace or watch a video of it on Youtube, because they're all essentially as accessable as downloaded songs.
The satisfaction you get from that is worth more than money to any serious artist
Any bands out there care to tell me how they pay the bills on pure appreciation. The last time I looked you needed money, not a warm fuzzy glow.
I see your point about Myspace/Youtube but these are promotional tools for bands and if they choose not to host something/get it banned (depending on the circumstances) it's their choice. No band voluntarily puts up their entire recorded work on Oink. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because they don't share your idealistic views.
As for people on the minimum wage, I'm sorry but there are plenty of things you can't do if you can't pay for them and there are plenty of ways of enjoying music for free. As long as they are legal that's fine.
By the way I only earn a fraction over the minimum wage. The £20 I pay per month to Emusic is a very big deal to me. I'm still with the OP. People will download music for free because they can. It doesn't make it right.
???
"I don't see it as a job, and I largely find artists who do make very boring music." That's quite a sweeping generalisation merely to justify your point. Your first paragraph makes you sound like a very selfish person. I really hope you are just playing devil's advocate.
Recording music and touring requires money (don't believe all bands make a tonne on gigs). Do you honestly believe that being an artist (of any variety) shouldn't be a career if you are good at it? I'd love to know what bands you are into, I assume none of them use any kind of professional studio to record and have made it purely on word of mouth.
Of course some of them do
I'm not a selfish person. I barely download anything, but I don't think it's wrong to do so. Touring and recording costs money, but so do a lot of leaisure pursuits. And plenty of people have made great records for next to nothing. I'm not saying musicianship shouldn't be a career, I'm just saying I don't think everyone should have to pay for promotion/touring/production costs if they want to hear some music, in a very pure form.
So touring and recording are leisure pursuits
that bands should engage in to bring us,the grateful public, their art? I don't quite understand your argument.
The 'music, in a very pure form' (which lets not forget is still someone's intellectual property) costs money to record and also promote, maybe not to word-of-mouth-savvy DiS people but to the general public who will buy enough CDs/MP3s to pay the artists and their families - that's the reality I'm afraid.
Yes I know you can record stuff in your bedroom these days but I personally don't want a world where everything sounds like early Daniel Johnston. Many types of music music still involve assembling a band in a proper studio. Bands/labels should be able to take a punt on putting the cash together to create their masterpiece and we can damn well pay for it if we think it's good.
'Can' being the operative word.
Alright then,
'should'. Happy now?
WELL MAYBE IF THE BPI MADE MORE EFFORT
TO GET DECENT MUSIC PLAYED ON THE RADIO, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO TRY BEFORE WE BUY.
There are plenty of places to try before you buy
Next.
there's other ways to try...
fair points
while i'm not trying to justify it morally, on occasion it does have benefits such as widening the number of listeners for bands with poor distro/promo, which in turn sell more tickets and merch
has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis of this? (/geek)
an analysis would be very interesting
but i'm pretty sure it'd be difficult or impossible to carry out accurately.
Out of interest
Did Oink offer music as MP3s (or similar) or as Flac files?
Depends on the seeder
but you werent allowed to put anything less then 192kbps up.
There were lots of
lossless files on there.
Interesting
Just because a lot of people use the 'MP3s are lower quality than CDs so why should I pay for them?' argument.
Sorry to hog this thread everyone, I just think it's a really interesting debate and the OP totally sums up how I feel about it.
people with the
attitude that its all about the music and artists dont care about making money are usually people living with their parents or people who've never had financial worries.
That said it much better
than my acres of rants above.
i don't think
you can morally justify it, no. Personally, I know I would buy much less music if I never downloaded any music. But that's not a moral justification, just an argument against a hardline crackdown on illegal downloading. Of course, I know that's not the case for a lot of downloaders.
I don't believe I have the right to free music
but it is an invaluable tool in helping me purchase things that I genuinely like.
I'm also in a band I'm gonna be relying on people to buy my music so that I get the opportunity to make more. People that believe they have the right to free music are fucking idiots who have zero respect for the hard work and effort that goes into making a record of some quality.