Quote:
Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't think downloading music can be compared to stealing cars, etc. or cheating taxes. Music is an art. It's not a material thing.
|
Hmmm…so it would be OK to steal something, so long as it could be called “art”. Interesting…and it might explain why there are so many starving artists. I wonder if it would explain the glut of velvet Elvis paintings too??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Few people can afford to buy everything they want to listen to. I have more than 1500 albums on my computer...if I couldn't download music I couldn't possibly have heard a tenth of that amount of music. And if I hadn't, I would definitely be a different person. Without "illegal" music, music wouldn't be hardly as important to me as it is now.
|
You know, there are LOTS of things in this world that I want that I can’t afford. You know what…too damn bad! That’s just the way it is in the world. We don’t get everything we want in life, and the fact that we don’t have something we want doesn’t give us license to steal it (or, if you prefer, borrow it indefinitely)…whether we call it a material thing or art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I buy as much music as I can afford, but I still have to download music.
|
You don’t HAVE to download music…you choose to do so because you want something that you apparently can’t afford. The notion that someone HAS to download music is, frankly, absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And come on - who wants to spend (or possibly waste) $15 (many CDs are actually $25US here in Australia) on a band they've never even heard.
|
Nobody…but that’s how it goes. I’ve purchased plenty of duds by bands I’ve HEARD, and I don’t feel like that gives me the right to take it without paying for it.
You know, there’s this thing here in the US called FM radio…maybe you have it in Australia too?? You can listen to it and it doesn’t cost you a thing.
If you don’t, there’s this other thing called the library…you can borrow CD’s there (it’s legal too) and listen to them.
There’s also more than one LEGAL download service (e.g. Rhapsody, Yahoo! Music, etc…) available to listen to music for a small monthly fee. Ditto satellite radio (e.g. Cirrus), which has a pretty extensive offering for a relatively small fee.
Let’s assume for a moment that NONE of these options are viable down under. Too bad. You are not entitled to receive free that which costs the rest of us money simply because you can steal it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Anyway, music sharing does not even effect CD sales. People who can afford CDs will still choose to buy CDs over mp3s. All P2P does is give everyone access to all the music in the world, no matter how poor they are. Records still sell, and even if there was a decline in sales musicians would still cope. There are other ways to make money - playing live shows and selling merchandise. And that decline in sales would probably be due to less people buying albums they don't like, which they would have wasted their money on if it weren't for music sharing. In fact, I have bought more music because of P2P than I would have if it didn't exist, and I'm sure many others have too. Not only because it has created a love for music, but also because I know what I'm paying for, so I won't hesitate to spend what I can afford on music.
Not to mention, without music sharing, many many many Indie bands wouldn't be where they are today. eg. Broken Social Scene
|
I count no fewer than seven distinct (and well worn) rationalizations in that last quote.
I particularly like “Records still sell, and even if there was a decline in sales musicians would still cope. There are other ways to make money - playing live shows and selling merchandise”.
Hmmm…what if some clever fellow were to set up a mic and start a clandestine live broadcast over the internet of all a particular band’s live shows. Let’s assume that he makes no profit…just does it because it’s art and he thinks that all folks, no matter how poor they are, deserve to have access to this live show. I mean, concert tickets are awfully expensive…right?
Let’s also assume that another fellow decides to sell his own t-shirts at cost outside of these same live concerts. Again, he doesn’t do it because he wants to make money (and holy ****, is there money to be made…you think CD’s are expensive, try buying a t-shirt at a concert!!), but because he thinks that “art” ought to be available to the masses, not just those who can afford it.
I wonder…is any of this wrong?? Do you think that concert ticket and merchandise sales would suffer? I guess it’s OK though…musicians would still cope, right?
I say it is wrong…in fact, it could even end in tragedy:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28467
OK…so you’ve said a lot here. It still sounds like the same old excuses for doing something that, ultimately, you know isn’t quite right, even if there is some question about whether it’s legal or not.