"Pirates buy more music than average consumers."

[Andromalia]

Really depends on a lot of factors.
I can't, for exemple, discover new underground metal bands by buying their CDs in a shop: they're just not there. Ane even finding them online can sometimes be tricky.

Now that I have the income to actually pay for all the music (and video games for that matter) that I want, I foten can't even find where to buy it while downloading it is pretty easy.
Then there's the issue of DRMs. When I buy an album, I pretty much want to be able to listen to it on whatever media I choose. That records or distribution companies don't, is their problem, and is basically a step back in consumer rights, with the whole "we only sell you a licence" thing.
I have pirated downloads of music I paid because the CDs won't run in my cars, or the paid-for download won't work out of itunes, that kind of bullshit.

 

[Zehailiu]

In what sense is piracy wrong?

Right or wrong in human society doesn't seem to have any root inherent in nature, it seems to be more closely related to statistics and chance. If we collectively decide that something is acceptable(or those who control the most resources decide so), then an act is right, no matter how horrendous. Nuking a populated city for example, we've done that.

Right now ubiquitous technology gives people the power to share any information, thus it becomes the norm. This trend will not stop or slow down, within our life times most music will become digitally available, and baring any revolutionary DRM that is undefeatable by hackers, all music can/will be shared digitally. Statistically speaking then, it would be more "right" to share music.

What you think of stealing, I think of as commercialization/monetization failing to catch up with digitization. We need to figure out how to compensate the creators in a way that is in accordance with current media technology, not try to hold on to our outdated view of creative business and try to hold back technological growth or adoption, which is nearly impossible.

 

[Semichastny]

Pirating isn't stealing, if it was people wouldn't be charged with copyright infringement.

 

[JosephAOI]

I've pirated a few band's new albums before they came out recently and because of that, bought them in the first week of sales. If I hadn't, I probably wouldn't have bought them yet. I like to give an album a good long test run to know if I like it. There's very few albums that I love upon first hearing them or that I love within the first week or two of having heard them.

This is also the reason that, like Red Seas Fire, I'm gonna be releasing all of my music for free until I can establish a fan base. It's counter productive to charge people who don't even know if they like you for your music. But, I digress.

I think piracy is extremely helpful to a band's popularity. Just look at the downloads on Rings Of Saturn's new album. Of course, a lot of that was also generated from the half-speed recording debacle in the news but you see my point.

 

[MrGignac]

in my day, we had to buy a CD/tape and listen to the whole thing before we realized it sucked. record companies like that model

whats the point when they stream everything in existence on youtube in hi-def now.
i would like to see bands in the future selling all thier own stuff. indiemerchstore and bandcamp are great ideas

 

[iliketofish]

I usually find myself downloading torrents of an album to try it out, and if I dig it, I will go out and buy the album. I don't know about you guys but I'm not gonna waste money on an album I think is garbage just because its the moral thing to do...

 

[JosephAOI]

^Without torrenting/downloading and checking out an album beforehand we get the "Worst album purchases" thread.

 

[seanchud]

My big beef with streaming is that I do most of my music listening on my phone when I'm out and about, so streaming would rape my monthly data. Even if the streaming service was separate (like RIM's old BBM/facebook cell plans) that would still destroy my battery.

The lossless thing is an interesting point. I've bought a few albums of iTunes, but every time I can I'd rather buy it on disc, because I can rip it in the format/bitrate that I want.

More format options would be nice for buying digital copies, and not having to authenticate a file every time you put it on a new device. Last time I checked, iTunes had a 5-authentication limit to each song/album. Computer, phone/iPod, external, and you're already down to two. If you wanna replace all those devices you're out of luck. It makes sense that they don't want someone buying a digital album and giving it to all their friends, but I can buy a cd, rip it, and give it to all of my friends. They're just gonna have to start trusting people.

With Spotify you can download albums to your phone while you happen to be on wifi and be safe with your data cap. It does require you to have loads of space on your phone and know what you want to listen to ahead of time, but it's been more than worth the $10 monthly fee. I'd say I listen to at least 5 new records a week using the sync to phone offline option.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

It's 2012, 95% of music is available via YouTube and pre-release streaming without having to illegally download the album. Are they high quality and lossless? Nope, but it's enough to sample the music.

Music isn't expensive either, especially from smaller bands, the type usually unavailable from large streaming providers. Most albums run from $5 to $10, if that's enough to bring you to the poor house, the problem isn't the price of the CD/download.

Piracy is free, easy, and near limitless in it's selection of music. Nothing can compete with it, it's like selling air. That doesn't mean that it's anyone's right to do. It's hip to jump on the "labels are evil" and "certain artists don't need my money" bandwagons, but it's not as simple as that.

Do I think piracy should be punishable by prison or extreme fines? Not in the least. Though, I don not encourage using them. I feel, somehow, it shows poor moral compass and feeds the modern, internet age thought of "fuck them, they're not me, I have the right to whatever I want" so prevalent these days.

Maybe I'm not picky though. I LOVE pre-orders. I have no problem paying $20, $30, or $40 for a special edition album with all kinds of goodies from a band I love, whether I've heard anything off the album or not. The way I figure, I'm not 15 anymore, I don't go to 1/1000th the live music I once did, my time is less plentiful as it once was. I still love supporting the bands and the labels that my favorite bands are on.

Justify it all you guys want. Heck, as long as I don't have to hear about it, especially here, do it all you want.

 

[ROAR]

It's hip to jump on the "labels are evil" and "certain artists don't need my money" bandwagons, but it's not as simple as that.

I hear this shit too much.
Labels:
It's a business, they provide a product. That's what they do.
They're not evil, they're a business. They HAVE to make money,
whatever way they see fit.
EX: You may think it sucks when Roadrunner shuts down a branch,
but Warner Bros needs a profit, or else they're fucked. And so is
Rush, Trivium, and the like.

"Certain artists don't need my money"
This pisses me off more than anything. It doesn't matter
if it's Britney Spears who make millions, if you want the song
she's provided a product and there's nothing "right" about stealing it.
Please show me where it says "after someone has made x amount of money
they are no longer entitled to anymore."
That's fucked up.
/rant

I second Stealth's comment.
Without piracy Periphery would have flown by me a few years ago.
Now I have too many shirts and records.

 

[goherpsNderp]

is there anything LEGALLY wrong with downloading an album i already own? maybe.

is there anything MORALLY wrong with downloading an album i already own? not in the slightest, microscopic bit.

i bought the right to listen to that music as many times as i want, and after that point it doesn't matter how i obtain the album. the only moral implications i could possibly fathom is if i willingly downloaded it from a website that i knew was run by electrical grids powered directly by human slaves in large hamster wheels.

copyright law and the music industry are way overdue for an overhaul, and they need to reflect the concept of what i mentioned above: if we buy the rights to listen to music (as they are literally describing it themselves) then they need to revamp their entire infrastructure to suit that fundamental shift in what it means to exchange money for music. as it stands right now, they want to play the game both ways, and only in their benefit. they act like it's a physical good when it can get them a win in court but act like it's only "permission to listen to" when it comes to being flexible with the way we can have the fucking music to begin with.

if we're going to get inferior products that are a pain to use, we can't bring with us anywhere easily or listen to on multiple devices, then charge us WAY less, and offer us a normal priced version of it all that can be used as freely as it could be back in the days of tapes and cd's. until then, people are going to naturally gravitate towards what doesn't suck, and the RIAA can continue to swim against the current instead of riding the wave to a better way.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

Wow, seems like this forum has finally woken up to the way things are now. I must say, I am pleased

 

[tedtan]

there's nothing "right" about stealing

I'm not promoting piracy, but technically speaking, piracy is not stealing in the eyes of the law.

Theft (stealing) is taking someone's personal (physical) property from them and depriving them of their use of that property, e.g., if I were to steal your guitar, you couldn't play it while I had it.

Intellectual property infringement (piracy) is "the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty". Untill peer to peer networking (and the record companies' failure to keep up with technological advances), noone even bothered pursuing copyright violations unless the infringer was making money by selling something, like bootleg CDs at a flea market or something.

And in those casesthat were pursued, the punishment was to pay the copyright holder (the record company) the money made from the illegal CDs. Since those CDs were never sold officially, the band never saw a cut of the money from the record company.

 

[fps]

Should it be made illegal to upload music to the internet without holding copyright for that music?

 

[Andromalia]

...

I get your view, and basically share it.

The main problem I see is that I had to download illegal copies of albums I own because of DRM. I do not excuse but understand people that go directly to pirating, the same as if you leave a kid alone in the sweets shop.

In the days of cassette and CD, i had my cassette and CD. I could use them in whatever player I wanted and listen to the music. Some tapes broke over time, I bought them again (I likely bought motorhead's 1916 more than 3 times)

Buying legally is a hassle. CD won't read in PC. Itune file won't read in car. etc etc.

Some other thought to consider. Assuming average steady revenue and not counting crisis times etc, what budget people had for music and entertainment now has ot be shared by music, DVDs, videogames, while their income has not rised the same. (and actually became lower in some cases). Editors skew the debate by arguing about loss of CD revenue. I'd be ready to wager that Universal makes more money if you aggregate music, DVDs and video games that they made solely on music 30 years ago.

So, ok, not buying is bad. But the companies certainly do what they can to dissade people from paying. A good starting point would be non DRM formats you can buy on a website. DRMs make customers regret not being pirates.

 

[Goro923]

I'd speak my mind about this topic, but I've already gotten banned twice for minimally suggesting that I pirate music and also buy more CDs/merch than anyone I know.


Which I do.

 

[Sikthness]

Music isn't expensive either, especially from smaller bands, the type usually unavailable from large streaming providers. Most albums run from $5 to $10, if that's enough to bring you to the poor house, the problem isn't the price of the CD/download.

^It is expensive when you have 10,000 cds. Im not stealing a bands cd. Im simply downloading a series of 1's and 0's that may share some similarities with what is heard on a bands cd, but is ultimately a different thing.

I think I represent most pirates (ha) in that if a band has good music, they will receive my money, whether it be through a cd purchase, various merch, concert tickets, recs to friends, etc etc. If their music is mediocre or bad, they won't. Shit i have bills, and a young daughter, plus many other expenses. If it was not for downloading prior to purchasing, I would buy roughly 0 cds. My financial situation is not a bands problem of course, but with this system, some bands will receive my money. Otherwise none of them would. A downloaded album is not a lost sale in my (and many others') case, its not the same thing.

 

[tedtan]

Should it be made illegal to upload music to the internet without holding copyright for that music?

The answer depends on how you define illegal. If you mean make it a criminal offense punishable by time in prison, then my answer is no. If we went that route, everyone under 40, and many over 40, would be in prison.

If you mean to make it a civil offense punishable by a "fine", well, it already is that, sort of. The issue is that in these types of cases, the "fine" has traditionally been for the violator to pay the copyright holder the monies made from the sales of the copyrighted work. In the peer to peer file sharing model, there is no sale, so there is no money. In this case, wht should the punishment be (if anything at all)?

The best solution all around seems to be a new business model for the entertainment industries that addresses all the issues raised here in this thread while still allowing the creators to be paid for their efforts. If I knew what that model is, I would have a lot more money than I do.

 

[nickgray]

If I knew what that model is, I would have a lot more money than I do.

You assume that these people want a new model. Judging by their actions, they really, really don't.

 

[tedtan]

You assume that these people want a new model. Judging by their actions, they really, really don't.

You're right in that the big companies want to hold onto what they have as long as they can. And many of the pirates don't want anything to change, either. But that doesn't mean that the big companies can't be replaced by younger, smarter, more tech savy companies with innovative solutions to provide what the customers actually want. Somewhere in that line of douche-speak is a model that works for the artists, the customers and the middle man. Somewhere. We just need to find it.