[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Theft ain't honesty. You can pick the finer gray areas of downloading, but I won't do it. I buy used. I still find old vinyl under $1 and CDs for $2-$3. I think those prices are fair, I have a clear conscience and Big Music doesn't see a dime.

Agree 100%. Yard sales are where most of my CDs come from, and there is absolutely no music on my computer or iPod that I don't have the commercial CD for it.

 

[fraseyboy]

That concert was in Sydney, am I right?

Maybe in America you can get used CD's for $3 (I bet your brand new CD's are still pretty cheap) but it's not the same down here. They're normally $10USD or so, depending on the popularity. New releases are rarely less than $15USD.

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraseyboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif That concert was in Sydney, am I right? Maybe in America you can get used CD's for $3 (I bet your brand new CD's are still pretty cheap) but it's not the same down here.

New releases in the US are around $15 also, and the price of used disks at a used CD B&M store can be $8-$12. The real bargains are found at pawn shops, thrift stores, and yard sales.

 

[Al4x]

i never buy an album out the shop.. what is it now, about a £10? more?

when you can get it off ebay for pennys

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It wouldn't be stealing because you paid for those books with your tax dollars.

Theoretically perhaps. But tons of those books are bought used, like in Uncle Erik's example of buying used CDs, or donated, etc. The overall point is that the artist or publisher isn't getting any more money for it every time someone checks the book out, just like they aren't getting any more money every time someone "illegally" downloads their song. So what's the difference?

 

[Nocturnal310]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moontan13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agree 100%. Yard sales are where most of my CDs come from, and there is absolutely no music on my computer or iPod that I don't have the commercial CD for it.

Good for u..no awards though.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Theoretically perhaps. But tons of those books are bought used, like in Uncle Erik's example of buying used CDs, or donated, etc. The overall point is that the artist or publisher isn't getting any more money for it every time someone checks the book out, just like they aren't getting any more money every time someone "illegally" downloads their song. So what's the difference?

The difference is one is legal and one is stealing. I am not on the record companies side, but they put the resources into marketing, producing and funding the artist to get a wider audience, so it's a business that delivers the music.

I don't think it's right that the artists don't get more, but I am not going to drop my standards and become a thief and pretend stealing music is "justified". I could justify any company ripping me off. That doesn't mean I have the right to start stealing everything.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference is one is legal and one is stealing. I am not on the record companies side, but they put the resources into marketing, producing and funding the artist to get a wider audience, so it's a business that delivers the music. I don't think it's right that the artists don't get more, but I am not going to drop my standards and become a thief and pretend stealing music is "justified". I could justify any company ripping me off. That doesn't mean I have the right to start stealing everything.

Well, one merely has been *defined* as "legal" and one has been defined as "stealing."

We could just as easily change the definitions around. In that sense it's very relative and arbitrary.

The broader question is why has it been defined as "stealing?" Because the recording industry is losing profits from it. That's the only reason. In reality it's no more "stealing" than is checking out a book from the library. The artist hasn't "lost" anything any more than they lose anything when someone buys a CD at a yard sale. Maybe they've even gained something from the wider exposure.

The recording industry has just failed miserably at adapting to the new technology, so they have defined it in a way that is intended to protect their profits (which afaik isn't even working anyway). They want to hold everyone back in the old way of thinking just because they failed to adapt with new business models. So in effect they're trying to hold everyone hostage to old ways of thinking and doing things, but that hasn't worked and now they have been forced to try to adapt. Ultimately I think it's a losing battle for them, with literally billions of people coming online, so eventually we'll probably see things change even more. But I don't see any reason to help them hold everyone back, that's what they pay their lawyers for.

 

[skudmunky]

Screw buying used CDs - see em live!

Also, I wonder if buying a CD at a concert gets more money towards the artist.

 

[NWRain]

I don't like CD's, but I am a sucker for WAV files.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, it is. Neither Ministry nor Skinny Puppy have ever written one song with as much depth as 'The Day The World Went Away' or 'Something I Can Never Have'.

It's a matter of perspective. Ministry isn't about substance, but skinny puppy was very political back in the day, and I'll take ogre's politics over trent's self-involved whining any day.

Ministry had their emo period too, but it only lasted one album. Go pick up a copy of With Sympathy but i warn you - it sucks.

I'm not saying trent isn't talented - he's about the best keyboardist Pigface ever had. I just wish he'd shut up and play.

 

[milkweg]

I knew Kevin Crompton before they even formed Skinny Puppy and he didn't strike me as overtly political in nature. I like musicians who whine a lot anyway. That's why Joy Division > Skinny Puppy any day of the week.

 

[Happy Camper]

Is new music worth $15-20?

If you bought your music in a format that has been obsoleted, should you have to pay full fare because the industry obsoleted it to force you to buy it again? I'd still buy R2R if there were material to buy. Had I known they would still produce vinyl, I wouldn't have gotten rid of all my records in the 80s. Not being able to find vinyl in the brick and mortar stores, you were pretty much stuck with buying cds.

You can justify not "stealing" by buying used but I'm guessing a lot of used store inventory is stolen or people ripping their cds, then selling them. I've heard argument that when you purchase a format, you are only leasing the material and shouldn't be transferring the material off said format. You are only investing in the format for use, not the material. (total line of crappola)

Judgment is vanity. In most everything, someone is being screwed depending on the view.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I knew Kevin Crompton before they even formed Skinny Puppy and he didn't strike me as overtly political in nature. I like musicians who whine a lot anyway. That's why Joy Division > Skinny Puppy any day of the week.

He doesn't strike me as political either - but Kevin Ogilvie sure does.

I'll also take Joy Division or even New Order over Nine Inch Nails, lyrically speaking. The underlying message of every NIN song I've heard seems to be "I'm a whiny little biatch" - as opposed to the "I'm a bit of a wanker" message you get from New Order.

 

[bakercj93]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, one merely has been *defined* as "legal" and one has been defined as "stealing." We could just as easily change the definitions around. In that sense it's very relative and arbitrary. The broader question is why has it been defined as "stealing?" Because the recording industry is losing profits from it. That's the only reason. In reality it's no more "stealing" than is checking out a book from the library. The artist hasn't "lost" anything any more than they lose anything when someone buys a CD at a yard sale. Maybe they've even gained something from the wider exposure. The recording industry has just failed miserably at adapting to the new technology, so they have defined it in a way that is intended to protect their profits (which afaik isn't even working anyway). They want to hold everyone back in the old way of thinking just because they failed to adapt with new business models. So in effect they're trying to hold everyone hostage to old ways of thinking and doing things, but that hasn't worked and now they have been forced to try to adapt. Ultimately I think it's a losing battle for them, with literally billions of people coming online, so eventually we'll probably see things change even more. But I don't see any reason to help them hold everyone back, that's what they pay their lawyers for.

That's complete nonsense. Do you think it's not "stealing" to shoplift from Wal-mart because they don't pay their employees enough and because they don't have good enough security to prevent you? Downloading music has been defined as "stealing" because it is taking something for free that is not yours without the owner's permission - and in most cases, the owner is the record label. Last I checked, that was the definition of stealing, and I'm not sure how that can even be up for debate.

We can complain all we want, but the fact is, when an artist signs with a record label, he relinquishes the sole rights to his work. The artist is not being held hostage. They are willing participants that are benefiting from the situation as well (even if it's not as much as we think they deserve). They made a conscious decision to sign with a label to get their music out to a greater number of people.

It's a fair point to say that downloading music helps smaller bands because it exposes them to more people that might come pay to see their shows, where they make their real money. This is true - if you download an album and then pay to see their show, you are supporting that band....but not as much as if you actually bought their music instead of downloading it.

I understand downloading if you don't have the money. (that was what I did in college, and I have since gone back and bought most of what I used to listen to for free now that I have a job) But there is certainly nothing noble or righteous about downloading music instead of buying it.