NationStates Jolt Archive

To some, music gives people a sense of relaxation. I myself have heard accounts of people who says that music helps them not commit suicide (I'm not a fan of emos myself but that's beside the point).

Music is nothing but sound. We don't limit the sharing of the speech of President Truman on his bid to Congress to aid Greece and Turkey. Why would we limit the sharing of Rammstein's song, Du Hast?

Maybe I don't understand the laws against music sharing so well, but it makes as much sense as prohibition.

(BTW, Since we're all here and talking about music, anyone happen to know the name of that song in the commercial where the guy leaves his house to go to work, dons a helmet, jumps off a cliff, and lands next to his car? I think it was a Suzuki commercial. Anyway, it was really catchy the part I heard and if anyone knows the name...)

Simplified explanation:

If people just download music (movies, etc.) without paying for it, it cuts into the pocketbooks of the people involved in the production of that music (etc.). They want to be paid for their work.

If it cuts too deeply, then fewer people will be willing to produce in the future.

Simplified explanation:

If people just download music (movies, etc.) without paying for it, it cuts into the pocketbooks of the people involved in the production of that music (etc.). They want to be paid for their work.

If it cuts too deeply, then fewer people will be willing to produce in the future.
It kinda kills the song once you learn that a guy singing about a girl is rolling in money thanks to that song, that ONE song in many cases.

In any case, how much does it take to make a song anyway?

I support intellectual property rights, but I also support Internet downloading. A contradiction? No. The key is the RCAA. They're a group of non-productive, worthless, technologically outmoded middlemen who provide no useful function that is not now an anachronism, and are basically just a money sink, costing both consumers and artists enormous amounts of extra money. A direct, digitally based business model between consumers and artists would make costs of songs for consumers so minimal as to be nonexistent, and still make money for artists. The fact is, most of the money you pay for CDs goes not to the singers, but to the useless, archaic toll system of the recording companies. They know that they aren't necessary any more, and that new technology has made them obsolete, so they're trying to salvage their position by wrapping the technology in chains. No real concern for artists or property rights involved.

As far as I'm concerned, music downloading represents something of a fundamental change in the way the music industry operates. If an artist wants to make money, the only way to do it more or less is to do a lot of touring; people might still nick a few songs off the web but most of them aren't hostile to the idea of seeing said bands in concert as a result.

My opinions on the issue are somewhat mixed. On one hand, you can't deny that one's art--no matter what form that art takes--is the intellectual property of the songwriters and musicians involved: they deserve to be remunerated for their efforts if that's how they're going to be putting food on the table.

On the other hand, the recording industry has been grossly mishandling the market since about 1985, and the people who are losing money on this aren't the artists anyway. They completely missed the internet boat and efforts like iTunes, Napster and Rhapsody are, quite frankly, too little too late. These people should have been trying to figure out a way to make the internet work for them ten or twelve years ago like every other goddamn industry under the sun, instead they blew it off and declared war on it when the inevitable happened.

I'm generally very pro-corporation, but I can't stand the goddamn RIAA: they've been shooting themselves in the foot for almost 21 years now and I don't intend to let them get away with it. I don't pirate music anymore, but I'm not about to give up what I've got; the simple fact of the matter is that most of my music would not have been purchased in the first place if I didn't have an internet connection or what-not, and I never really bought CDs to begin with.

Also, the availability of free music isn't quite as widespread as some of the RIAA folks might have you think; in most cases your selection is still somewhat limited--in fact the only music sharing program worth its weight in dog shit was Audiogalaxy, and that got shut down some time ago. In most cases, if you want a specific song you still have to buy the CD; the free p2p community is either shrinking or I'm looking in the wrong places. That said, I imagine most of what's shared nowadays is pop-shit and rap-shit; the people who listen to the music I like are either lazy or computer illiterate, as my library is quite a bit smaller than most I've seen.

It kinda kills the song once you learn that a guy singing about a girl is rolling in money thanks to that song, that ONE song in many cases.

In any case, how much does it take to make a song anyway?

It may cost enormously; it may be nothing. Maybe the music industry is unjust and unfair. Maybe the artist earns nothing; maybe he's filthy rich.

Does it matter? By sharing music, you are essentially stealing. Music is a product like any other, it is produced and sold to cover the cost of production, and, yes, for profit (usually in gross amounts). It's probably not right to arrest someone for playing a CD he/she bought in front of his/her friends, but when it comes to ripping that CD and distrbuting it online to people around the world that he/she's never met ... it seems pretty clear.

Music is a product like any other

no, it isn't.

I'd love for all the people who insist that others should entertain them 'for the love, man' to try that bullshit on the guy who builds thier fence.

"You should be building my fence for the love, man!"

See how that flies.

no, it isn't.

How isn't it?

I am absolutely for file-sharing, but I think : music worth hearing is music worth buying...so I download music, to proove if i like a special band, and if i like it, i go and buy the cd

How isn't it?

because even in the absence of financial incentives - even in the presence of financial barriers - people will make music. they always have and always will. even in cultures where the very idea of somebody making their living by playing music would be utterly laughable, people make music.

music is just a different sort of thing than your standard goods and services.

I am absolutely for file-sharing, but I think : music worth hearing is music worth buying...so I download music, to proove if i like a special band, and if i like it, i go and buy the cd

I used to do this, but the lawsuits have completely ruined music for me. Sence the threats and start of the lawsuits I have not contributed one red cent to music, concerts or otherwise. For the record, I have not been downloading ether.

Simplified explanation:

If people just download music (movies, etc.) without paying for it, it cuts into the pocketbooks of the people involved in the production of that music (etc.). They want to be paid for their work.

If it cuts too deeply, then fewer people will be willing to produce in the future.
Good. Then maybe boy bands and 50 centers will die the death they deserve. Then we can get back to music made by people without plastic faces, without designer clothes, without thousands of dollars for light shows. Back to music that actually has a point beyond making a buck. Trade on brothers. Trade until the music industry collapses. And good riddance.

I'd love for all the people who insist that others should entertain them 'for the love, man' to try that bullshit on the guy who builds thier fence.

"You should be building my fence for the love, man!"

See how that flies.
If you go into music thinking you're going to make it rich, you're an idiot. Might as well hope you'll win the lottery.

If you go into music thinking you're going to make it rich, you're an idiot. Might as well hope you'll win the lottery.
Wait, so your saying that since they make little money you should be able to just take what they produce for free, because they should know thier not getting rich so they shouldn't even be able to cover the cost of recording the music? This makes sense to you?

EDIT: "Hey fence builder. Look, you're not gonna get rich doin' this anyway-and you should know that. So I'm not going to pay you at all. It's really your fault for wanting to build a fence in the first place..."

It kinda kills the song once you learn that a guy singing about a girl is rolling in money thanks to that song, that ONE song in many cases.

In any case, how much does it take to make a song anyway?
i believe it takes about 100k american to shoot an average music video (not including the musicians time of course), as well say a band of 4 people, takes a year to make an album, say just 2 support staff, the income for that year needs to support at least these 6 people, as well as cover all the expenses, as well as pay the record label, the employees at the music stores (servers etc for online music). the fact is that although the biggest bands out there are exceptionally wealthy, the smaller players are not, most work other jobs etc. so yes if your michael jackson whos sold 34 million of just 1 record, thats cool, but think about these people starting out. all the members of the offspring worked other jobs until the release of 'smash', eg: they were working 2 jobs for about 8 years to make things work before they hit it big, and if you wanna say their rolling around in their money iether thats not ture, they are very generous, and have actually released right to all (i think all, most either way inluding their album 'conspiracy of one' before it was even on store shelves).
the only reason any one would support music sharing is because they themselves use it, and are greedy and willing to exploit others. ill admit that i have downloaded songs before, and i probably have 6 or 7 on my computer now, but i use it mostly to test albums and have recently bought 3 different albums based on what i heard.....
enough for this rant

Wait, so your saying that since they make little money you should be able to just take what they produce for free, because they should know thier not getting rich so they shouldn't even be able to cover the cost of recording the music? This makes sense to you?
I'm saying that you shouldn't expect to make a living off of music. Don't worry I'm not out stealing music. If its not live I don't want to hear it anyway. But I figure people have been bootlegging music for years without these threats of imminent collapse. If the industry does collapse, I think it could be a very good thing. It's too fake and overproduced right now, with hardly any alternatives on the radio. Flip through the stations and it's the same play list over and over. Pretty much any artist is underground now unless they got a million dollar contract. I figure that this way they might actually get some exposure. So some decent music can shine through once all the shit hits the fan and disperses. So to speak.

Good. Then maybe boy bands and 50 centers will die the death they deserve. Then we can get back to music made by people without plastic faces, without designer clothes, without thousands of dollars for light shows. Back to music that actually has a point beyond making a buck. Trade on brothers. Trade until the music industry collapses. And good riddance.
...boy bands and 50 cent make money because thats what the people listen to, do you think they get into music originally because of the money, because thats terribly naive, no one has ever been a successful musician without years of hard work and sacrifice.

I'm saying that you shouldn't expect to make a living off of music. Don't worry I'm not out stealing music. If its not live I don't want to hear it anyway. But I figure people have been bootlegging music for years without these threats of imminent collapse. If the industry does collapse, I think it could be a very good thing. It's too fake and overproduced right now, with hardly any alternatives on the radio. Flip through the stations and it's the same play list over and over. Pretty much any artist is underground now unless they got a million dollar contract. I figure that this way they might actually get some exposure. So some decent music can shine through once all the shit hits the fan and disperses. So to speak.
Ah, the Robin Hood delusion. Sticking it up for music by sticking it to musicians.

How dare those bastards try to entertain and bring something to your world, and have the audacity to want to earn a meager living. So much more noble to starve to entertain you. It doesn't take years of practice and equipment that costs the same as some cars or anything. And I hear now that you can get groceries with 'the love,' so it's all good.

...boy bands and 50 cent make money because thats what the people listen to, do you think they get into music originally because of the money, because thats terribly naive, no one has ever been a successful musician without years of hard work and sacrifice.
You mean there aren't overnight sensations? Or bands that are created a la Spice Girls for general consumption? The people listen to that crap because their options are so limited. MTV, radio, all play the same damn top 40 songs. You take your pick out of a limited pile of shit with the hope that you draw out the less reeking turd.

Ah, the Robin Hood delusion. Sticking it up for music by sticking it to musicians.

How dare those bastards try to entertain and bring something to your world, and have the audacity to want to earn a meager living. So much more noble to starve to entertain you. It doesn't take years of practice and equipment that costs the same as some cars or anything. And I hear now that you can get groceries with 'the love,' so it's all good.
:p it always makes me happy to see people with coherent opinions:)

Ah shit. How did that happen? Can I get rid of one of those repeats?

Ah, the Robin Hood delusion. Sticking it up for music by sticking it to musicians.

How dare those bastards try to entertain and bring something to your world, and have the audacity to want to earn a meager living. So much more noble to starve to entertain you. It doesn't take years of practice and equipment that costs the same as some cars or anything. And I hear now that you can get groceries with 'the love,' so it's all good.
There’s a difference between making a living and making it rich. Plenty of fantastic bands make a living touring. They don’t make as much as a doctor or lawyer, but they do okay. If I wanted music in a box I’d spend my life in elevators. And no. Not sticking it to all musicians. Just the ones who have the unfair advantage of getting all the radio play not based on them actually being that much better than everyone else out there, but based on the fact that someone figured they had a great image to capitalize off of. Here’s your musician. Maybe when I start seeing some ugly ass musicians on MTV I won’t be so worried that the industry is too controlled. But right now, all you see is shiny young things. That aint natural selection working there.

You mean there aren't overnight sensations? Or bands that are created a la Spice Girls for general consumption? The people listen to that crap because their options are so limited. MTV, radio, all play the same damn top 40 songs. You take your pick out of a limited pile of shit with the hope that you draw out the less reeking turd.
im saying that just because you think its shit (well ok i do too, most of it anyway), but ya know what, other people dont think that way. i have very broad music tatses, and the only thing i dont listen to is rap/r and b, but guess what

most people who watch mtv, and other music videos on tv, and the radio do.
there is actually a radio station where i live (london ontario) that plays classical music on some programs (and no its not cbc or public radio), as well as ones that play all kinds of other stuff. i remember the first time i heard 'thats amore' (dean martin 1952) on the radio....anyways, my point is theres alot out there, and not everyone likes what you do

Ah shit. How did that happen? Can I get rid of one of those repeats?
The edit delete button in each of your posts, follow the directions on the screen.

And your beef is more with the likes of ClearChannel and things like laxation of FCC standards on how much of a market one company can own. Sony and the like only have music at all to get you to buy electronics, the industry you despise can weather the storm, it's the smaller bands that don't have the money or technology to protect themselves. You're fighting on the wrong front.

im saying that just because you think its shit (well ok i do too, most of it anyway), but ya know what, other people dont think that way. i have very broad music tatses, and the only thing i dont listen to is rap/r and b, but guess what

most people who watch mtv, and other music videos on tv, and the radio do.
there is actually a radio station where i live (london ontario) that plays classical music on some programs (and no its not cbc or public radio), as well as ones that play all kinds of other stuff. i remember the first time i heard 'thats amore' (dean martin 1952) on the radio....anyways, my point is theres alot out there, and not everyone likes what you do
I guess I can't bring myself to believe that the majority of people willingly choose shit over the good music that is out there. But then again, it's not like they necessarily have a choice. It always makes me laugh when some kid hears a Led Zeppelin or CCR song in a movie and thinks its awesome...or you hear a remake of a classic tune and kids think its new. They love it, but never even knew it existed because it doesn't get radio play. Or video play. I don't think that people are even being given a change to hear different music, so how is that a valid choice? Hey, every once in a while I'll hear a new song that is good. But I don't want to hear it three times in an hour just because they have to recycle their play list.

There’s a difference between making a living and making it rich. Plenty of fantastic bands make a living touring. They don’t make as much as a doctor or lawyer, but they do okay. If I wanted music in a box I’d spend my life in elevators. And no. Not sticking it to all musicians. Just the ones who have the unfair advantage of getting all the radio play not based on them actually being that much better than everyone else out there, but based on the fact that someone figured they had a great image to capitalize off of. Here’s your musician. Maybe when I start seeing some ugly ass musicians on MTV I won’t be so worried that the industry is too controlled. But right now, all you see is shiny young things. That aint natural selection working there.
So then there should be a salary cap on musicians? Or is this whole line a non-sequitor to the post you started this on. Because I don't recall advocating that all musicians should be rich, rather that they should be payed for what they produce.

If you don't like the music, don't listen to it. If all you hear is top 40 that's your problem. There is plenty of music out there, but if you want it spoon fed to you then you get applemash. It's how it works.

There’s a difference between making a living and making it rich. Plenty of fantastic bands make a living touring. They don’t make as much as a doctor or lawyer, but they do okay. If I wanted music in a box I’d spend my life in elevators. And no. Not sticking it to all musicians. Just the ones who have the unfair advantage of getting all the radio play not based on them actually being that much better than everyone else out there, but based on the fact that someone figured they had a great image to capitalize off of. Here’s your musician. Maybe when I start seeing some ugly ass musicians on MTV I won’t be so worried that the industry is too controlled. But right now, all you see is shiny young things. That aint natural selection working there.
i think we need to explain to you a little bit about how the world works, first off there is no evil board of executives controlling the music industry ("MAHA lets go screw the people by selling them shit music at high prices, mwhahahaha", i dont think so).
for radio its pretty straight forward, radio stations make their money through advertising (those 10 minutes of commercials everyhour), now which radio stations do you want to advertise on? well of course the one where the most people hear it! so naturally advertising on well listened to stations cost more, so what do the radio stations do? well they play songs that they believe will attract listeners, thats why in rural areas, there arent as much selection of channels, because you need something like 15,000 people p channel (minimum), and if 15k people dont listen to your style of music in your city, guarenteed there is no radio station of that type. its not because people are greedy bastards, or that pop music is inherently evil, its that PEOPLE LIKE WHAT IS PLAYED. i dont know about you, but i have all kinds of music i love, have no trouble getting it, and go to concerts on a fairly regular basis

The edit delete button in each of your posts, follow the directions on the screen.

And your beef is more with the likes of ClearChannel and things like laxation of FCC standards on how much of a market one company can own. Sony and the like only have music at all to get you to buy electronics, the industry you despise can weather the storm, it's the smaller bands that don't have the money or technology to protect themselves. You're fighting on the wrong front.
I'm not really fighting on any front. I don't download music anyway. I just figure it might mean some people who otherwise wouldn't get any exposure through the radio or tv might get it when their music is shared freely.

I'm not really fighting on any front. I don't download music anyway. I just figure it might mean some people who otherwise wouldn't get any exposure through the radio or tv might get it when their music is shared freely.
well then instead of forcing everyone to do it, those people can release their music of their own free will, many people already do it

I'm not really fighting on any front. I don't download music anyway. I just figure it might mean some people who otherwise wouldn't get any exposure through the radio or TV might get it when their music is shared freely.
You'd do better to rail against things like ClearChannel then, since downloading will ultimately do more harm to bands that can't defend themselves or have the resources of a major electronics manufacturer to cover loses.

There are small bands that willingly share their music to get exposure and it works for them, but it's at their discretion.

Once again, spoon fed is apple mash. It's not the music's fault as much as it's yours.

The record industry is evolving. Since wax recordings, most commercially recorded material was manufactured by a major label of some sort, but that isn't the case so much anymore. My prediction is this; Indy labels will soon be taking the torch. I think that most major labels are going to be phased out mainly because the music they are pumping out is poorly marketed and just bad. If these Indys know what's best, they will do some descent scouting for one, but more importantly, they will try new marketing tactics that could possibly make file sharing pointless, or make media buying more worth it. (everyone knows vinyl sounds better than anything anyway.)

because even in the absence of financial incentives - even in the presence of financial barriers - people will make music. they always have and always will. even in cultures where the very idea of somebody making their living by playing music would be utterly laughable, people make music.

music is just a different sort of thing than your standard goods and services.

I'm afraid I must disagree ... just because some people are willing to give a product away for free does not make it less of a product. Yes, people will play music even if there isn't anything in it for them. But will they make it on the scale that it is made today without financial incentives?

The basic problem is, regardless of the possible benefits, we are talking about somebody else's property here. While it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that 'it wouldn't hurt them much', or 'they have so much already', such arguments really miss the point. I think the best way to illustrate this is through a quick example.

I am, like many wikipedia contributors, quite enamored of the idea that all of the world's knowledge should be made freely available, and as easily accessible as possible. So this brings me to my example: if knowledge should be free, why do we protect intellectual property at all?

Using similar arguments to those cited in support of free music downloads, it would make sense to make every book, paper, and article ever written freely available over the internet. The first problem that comes to mind is that, quite honestly, we would find ourselves with no more authors, publishers, or writers within a span of less than ten years.

Still, putting the practical arguments aside, would it even be right to take away all that these writers had worked so hard on? Most have spent their lives working their way up the ranks in a profession where the majority never even earn enough to make a decent living. Those few that do make it big time are every bit as entitled to their money as a doctor, lawyer, or businessman is to his. To say that a person should not be entitled to sell their work because it can be distributed for free in electronic form is to hold a double-standard which would render almost all types of creative professionals obsolete.

Now, somebody is going to point to concert sales, and say 'your metaphor doesn't work because musicians can still make money from their concerts even if their music is free'. That is true, but authors can still make their money from book signings, endorsements, and movie licenses. This still doesn't change the fact that, just as the majority of a writer's money comes from selling their books, in this digital age the majority of a musician's money comes from selling their music. Just like writers, musicians are in a career where only a few are able to even get off their feet; the rest aren't able to perform more than one or two low-key gigs a year. For these bands, the loss of CD revenues would likely be fatal. In short, it would hurt every single person in the music industry, and the little guys most of all.

Going back to my original point, you really can't use the possible benefits to society as a justification for robbing musicians blind. The most obvious reason for this is, if you were to carry through with free downloads there would be no more professional music for society to benefit from. But the most important reason is that, even if it would provide such an overwhelming benefit, we cannot weigh the rights of the few against a benefit for the many. That just isn't what we believe in (Bushies excluded) and it certainly isn't right.

Also, the availability of free music isn't quite as widespread as some of the RIAA folks might have you think; in most cases your selection is still somewhat limited--in fact the only music sharing program worth its weight in dog shit was Audiogalaxy, and that got shut down some time ago. In most cases, if you want a specific song you still have to buy the CD; the free p2p community is either shrinking or I'm looking in the wrong places.

Actually, it's still going pretty strong. Limewire is probably the best major/widely known P2P network out there right now, and you can get almost any individual song you might want on there. Getting very specific classical music can be anything from a hassle to just impossible, but almost everything else is there for the downloading. From what I've seen, the RCAA wants to make it look like their pernicious litigation campaign has made a major dent on P2P downloading, as if they're winning this war they've started on technology, but that isn't really the case.

Actually, it's still going pretty strong. Limewire is probably the best major/widely known P2P network out there right now, and you can get almost any individual song you might want on there. Getting very specific classical music can be anything from a hassle to just impossible, but almost everything else is there for the downloading. From what I've seen, the RCAA wants to make it look like their pernicious litigation campaign has made a major dent on P2P downloading, as if they're winning this war they've started on technology, but that isn't really the case.

Bearshare is also fairly big and reliable.

How isn't it?

This is usually my only addition to this debate.

Music, like video games, movies, any electronic media product, is different from other products because there is no way to register dissatisfaction with the product. Because of the recording industry's phobia of illegal distribution, they basically prevent you from registering dissatisfaction with their product. You have no way of sampling their product ahead of time to make sure you will be satisfied with it, and if you do not enjoy their product, you are stuck without any recourse, as they'll never take it back. You're essentially gambling with the product, not purchasing it.

What the internet and p2p offered was a chance to sample their product to guarantee satisfaction before you purchased, much in the same way you can try on clothes at a department store to make sure you like them before you buy them.

Now that's not to say that that's what people do. Lord knows many people just abuse the system to rip off artists. It's not what I do, and I know plenty of people who still buy tons and tons of music even after downloading it. I'm not even sure that the good people outnumber the bad people. But the fact is that it does lead to increased sales for the artists that don't necessarily have huge label media blitz to benefit them. Word of mouth on the internet is a thousand times more effective than anywhere else. Of course I don't have statistics on this, but in my own personal experience, I have purchased many CDs because I liked the songs I downloaded; CDs that I would have under no circumstances considered gambling the $15 on in the past. This is the future of p2p for the music industry. If the labels would just embrace this new phenomenon instead of fighting it tooth and nail, they could transform it into something useful for them; free advertising.

Unfortunately, those people do exist who just horde free music with no thought for the artists they are essentially stealing money from. That is unfortunate. But I still believe that the internet and p2p specifically is a gold mine for record labels that they are not using they way they could. I'm not nearly technically proficient enough to know any ways to make this next suggestion feasible, but if there were some way to limit downloading without restricting its access, that would be ideal. That way, we could prevent the more egregious offenders while still allowing people like me to sample music before buying it.

Illegal though it may be, people are not going to stop downloading music. It doesn't make any sense not to. The argument that artists should be conpensated for their work is of course valid, but what about the concerns of the consumer? What recourse does a consumer have with an inferior product? At some point the consumer is going to defend himself against a market that allows very little in the expression of dissatisfaction, and p2p seems to be the new way of doing so just like bootlegging was in the past. Like I advocated in the past, the record industry would do very well to use p2p for their own advancement, but until they do, illegal downloading will continue, and the bad apples will be used to draw negative attention to the whole process, and the good people like myself who still manage to own 120+ CDs even though they do download. Really, though, this whole situation is in the hands of the record companies. They've spent 20 years fighting this technology; fighting against an inevitable loss. The sooner they take the reins of this technology, the better, for themselves, and for the consumer.

Seriously. $15-$20 for a $.03 CD which will at best have 3 or 4 songs I'll listen to with any frequency, and the rest of which is crap, with no way to tell beforehand what's on the CD, what is and is not good, etc.? And most of that money going to some stupid middlemen establishment, not the artists themselves? Lol, yeah, great joke, I'm really going to buy into that dumb, exploitive deal when there's mountains of absolutely free, easy-to-get music of any kind sitting literally at my fingertips via the Internet....

Seriously. $15-$20 for a $.03 CD which will at best have 3 or 4 songs I'll listen to with any frequency, and the rest of which is crap, with no way to tell beforehand what's on the CD, what is and is not good, etc.? And most of that money going to some stupid middlemen establishment, not the artists themselves? Lol, yeah, great joke, I'm really going to buy into that dumb, exploitive deal when there's mountains of absolutely free, easy-to-get music of any kind sitting literally at my fingertips via the Internet....
you can still buy seperate songs, it's not like an either/or situation
ie either buy the whole cd, or steal the songs I like


yes I think that "dowloading free music" is stealing.

If you want to listen to free music turn on the radio, if you want to have music then you need to pay.

I could be this way though because I wouldn't want people to "steal" my music.

yes I think that "dowloading free music" is stealing.

If you want to listen to free music turn on the radio, if you want to have music then you need to pay.

I could be this way though because I wouldn't want people to "steal" my music.

When the music I want to listen to becomes available around here in stores or on the radio, then I will.

you can still buy seperate songs, it's not like an either/or situation
ie either buy the whole cd, or steal the songs I like


yes I think that "dowloading free music" is stealing.

If you want to listen to free music turn on the radio, if you want to have music then you need to pay.

I could be this way though because I wouldn't want people to "steal" my music.

What if songs are unplayed on the radio or not available in stores where you live? The flaw exist in the recording industry's business model, not (in most cases) in the consumer.

What if songs are unplayed on the radio or not available in stores where you live? The flaw exist in the recording industry's business model, not (in most cases) in the consumer.
you can download specific songs online for about $1.00 a song. They are the same songs, that you would come across on the illegal services.

you can download specific songs online for about $1.00 a song. They are the same songs, that you would come across on the illegal services.

That's patently false. It is virtually impossible to get lesser known bands' music on iTunes or any of those programs. If it's not a major label release within the last 5-10 years, or a well-known classic, it's not there. And I know; I've tried to do things that way. Now I mostly rely on friends' word of mouth, but it's still a fundamental flaw in the business model. What other product is there that does not allow any sort of trial system before purchase? I could go test drive a $50,000 car tomorrow, but I'm not allowed to listen before buying a $15 CD?

That's patently false. It is virtually impossible to get lesser known bands' music on iTunes or any of those programs. If it's not a major label release within the last 5-10 years, or a well-known classic, it's not there. And I know; I've tried to do things that way. Now I mostly rely on friends' word of mouth, but it's still a fundamental flaw in the business model. What other product is there that does not allow any sort of trial system before purchase? I could go test drive a $50,000 car tomorrow, but I'm not allowed to listen before buying a $15 CD?
I can agree with the fact that there are major flaws in the music industry model. I can't agree that it's okay to steal because "I really want it" or because it's "more convienient"

I can agree with the fact that there are major flaws in the music industry model. I can't agree that it's okay to steal because "I really want it" or because it's "more convienient"

It's not okay, but it's going to continue as long as the recording industry's marketting system continues to be "dick over the consumer". And I won't shed a single tear for all the money they lose as a result of a deeply flawed and unsound system.

As far as I'm concerned, music downloading represents something of a fundamental change in the way the music industry operates. If an artist wants to make money, the only way to do it more or less is to do a lot of touring....

I never understood objectivism in that area. On one hand, it is egoist, but on the other hand, it elevates property to a deontological moral standard. If you ask me, property is just a social construct, not a fundamental element of the universe, and certainly not anything to base an ethical code on.

Go listen to this program (or rather series of programs) by Douglas Adams to get some idea of the arguments regarding music online (it is a little dated as it was made before I-Tunes, and while Napster was still around)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hhgttf/av_music.shtml