Both. I used to DL all the time, but nowadays I'll only DL if I'm on the fence. I'll try it out and if I like it enough I'll buy it. So most of the music I keep now is paid for. But I have no problem admitting it's wrong to DL. It's stealing, and I'd guess the majority of my collection was obtained in a morally wrong manner. There's no 2 ways about it. I used to DL tv shows and movies too, but now I do Netflix even though it's a slower turnaround time.
You can rationalize all you want, but stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you follow a band around the country and attend every single one of their shows. If you download copyrighted music without paying and/or permission, you are stealing. If someone sees Avatar 1000 times, it is still illegal for them to download an illegal copy.
People still make music? Not from what I can tell listening to the radio. I have all the stuff I want and it spans the years from the 1740s to the mid 1990s.
you can lawyer speak to me all you like. I deal in reality so next time you take a picture at an astros game or talk to someone abot the game through text remember your breaking the law. i'm not trying to rationalize, justify anything because that would be as r****ded as the world of copyright law.
I was not the subject of my example, I just know of some that it happened to. I'm all down with finding other ways to make your music and get it to the people, but I don't agree with the notion that the current situation is one where just taking music you want without compensating whoever paid to help get it made is an argument that makes sense, if they are in fact expecting compensation.
Do you guys justifying illegal downloading because the band gets a small portion of the royalties write a check directly to the band for the proportion of the royalties they would have received through a legal purchase?
I steal everything, stealing the hard work of others for my own personal entertainment gives me much joy.
This. Going to see Muse next week. Muse is a group I had never heard of 6 years ago as they weren't played on the radio, but through word of mouth in a private music torrent forum I decided to give 'em a listen and they're now one of my top 5 favorite bands. I support the artist's I like by attending concerts or buying a concert DVD. I can't even remember the last time I purchased a CD. I have over 5000 CD's collecting dust that I'd love to get rid of now as they take up too much room. Everything is digital now, my 4 TB's of music take up maybe a foot of space, and I do it because I can and I want to. I don't need some hippie crying to me about thievery. I'll be downloading an album or the newest Blue Ray while I hand them a tissue. I download music, movies, apps, books, bootleg concerts etc. all via torrents. I even donate to the sites for showing me where to get the content. I have absolutely no problem with it either. You don't like it? I got DEEZ NUTS for ya.
Really though? Throughout my life, I've bought 8-tracks and albums then cassettes and then CDs. Some music I've bought 3 or 4 times. If I download Quadrophenia even though I have a cassette and album version I'm breaking the law... but where is the morality of the record companies who planned for obsolescence and the equipment manufacturers who greedily played along and made it next to impossible to maintain an 8-track or album library? With digital format, I can now transport the music I bought across media and technology without having to line the skimming pockets of the record companies yet again. In Federal Records law, the information (music) is what's important, not the medium. In entertainment law, the lobbyists have influenced and twisted this so that the medium is the most important, as if people buy the CD to have a shiny disc instead of for the music it contains. Screw the record companies and their planned obsolescence. They saw another cash cow in CDs and were so blinded by the money that they didn't see the demise of their own business model. I've got my music... paid for in one way or another... and I'll have it the rest of my life.
We need more bands like Radiohead and NIN who ask that you download their albums. Trent Reznor was even a member of OiNK (RIP) and had a nice interview talking about the advantages of a place like that after it went down. Radiohead put out In Rainbows on a website for download in both FLAC and V0. They didn't even make you pay for the album, just asked that if you like it they'd appreciate a donation. In an interview a little more than a year later they said they made more money off of that one album than they had on ALL previous records combined. All without the help of a record label, and it turned out to be one of, if not their best album to date. Not feeling sorry for the poor, poor record labels over here.
Radiohead didn't release In Rainbows in FLAC when they were giving it away on their website. Many fans were disappointed with the quality.
Nah, I was just looking at the thread and it's the first band that popped into my mind. I really don't hate it, in fact, I have yet to listen to it.
This is about the same for me. I don't care to learn how to burn etc. Pandora - grooveShark etc work for me Word Of Mouth may tell me what is out there Rocket River
This is true, though obviously Radiohead could not have done this in 95 with Pablo Honey to the same extent of success. I agree, those that can should do this. i also agree that the labels' business as usual model is dissipating if not gone... but that's not the discussion here, I don't think. And if you think the argument of those that are generally against DL'ing tunes is that they feel sorry for the labels, not only is that not true (unless maybe you work for them), but also I think maybe you're missing (or ignoring) the point.
Both. Before, when I was DJ'ng for a while, my record habit(vinyls) cost me up to 600-700 $ a month. I did download tons of stuff for free and was introduced to many artists which I would never have noticed. Now, in the digital age, I still download tons of stuff and pay for some of it. I especially like to support smaller and more obscure artists. I still use more $ on music in a month than most people do in a year. So I don't really feel bad about it. Basically I use the $ I can reasonably afford anyway, and the rest of the artists I steal from get a chance, that next time I maybe use my money on their songs, which I wouldn't probably never heard of without me stealing their previous work in the first place.
