Should we pay for Music?

Diabhal Beag · 17-04-2010 01:34PM

9/10 I don't pay for music. If I have extra money in my paypal I might buy from itunes but if I don't download it for free I probably wouldn't buy.

Would the artists rather have no listeners than people who "steal" their music but go to their gigs etc?

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 01:35PM

alex73 wrote: »

I use Itunes a lot, download all my music from it. Very handy at only 99c a song or less.

But it seems many think they have the right to download music for free.

It seems soon they will have their internet connection cut.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15903/comms/the-day-the-music-piracy-died-in-ireland

Does anyone think they should NOT pay for music?

of course the artist and everyone involved in making it should be paid

there are more ways than one for this to happen

some say the industries lack of willingness to change and adapt to the internet generation is reason enough to ignore them and download for free i dont really agree with this but the industry does need to work harder to figure out new ways to make money as selling cds in brick and mortar stores simply wont cut it from now on

o1s1n · 17-04-2010 01:40PM

lizt wrote: »

I pay for all my music on itunes. It costs more but at least I don't have to watch my back. We've all heard the stories about people (i.e. Individuals illegally downloading music for themselves, not selling it on, etc) getting caught and being fined. I know the likelihood of this is minuscule but I'd rather not take the chance.

You're taking more of a chance crossing a road then you are downloading music. But I'm sure you'll have no problem doing that.

Record companies are trying to put this fear in people via piracy warnings on everything. In reality there's nothing to be afraid of at all. It's similar to the fear they try and put in you with tv license ads.

As previous posters have mentioned, there's nothing stopping you taking a hard drive or even a USB stick to someone elses house with songs on it.

Hank_Jones · 17-04-2010 01:46PM

The only real problems I have are with the price of music.

Forking out €20 for an album is very steep.
I would think the profit margins on music are massive, especially if you are downloading from Itunes.
From Itunes it is basically just a digital transfer and it costs €10-€15 just for that?
They really should be trying to lower the price of music, but still be improving the quality.

Strange how U2 haven't had a good album in 10 years, yet are pushing hard for this. :rolleyes:

amacachi · 17-04-2010 01:48PM

Haven't bought or downloaded music in nearly two years I'd say. Just so little that appeals to me.
Actually I have downloaded some stuff, all commercially unavailable mixes etc., don't think anyone's losing out.

Mike 1972 · 17-04-2010 01:49PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

but the industry does need to work harder to figure out new ways to make money as selling cds in brick and mortar stores simply wont cut it from now on

TBH theyre at least a decade too late.

During the 1990's as CD's (largely) replaced Vinyl and cassettes. the industry (already well used to screwing customers, artists and independent retailers alike) grew even more greedy and complacent when they discovered they could sell customers overpriced music that they already owned.

The internet has proven to their comeuppance. And while they blubbered and dithered over how to respond to the fact that technology has rendered all their business models obsolete and irrelevent an entire generation has grown up to regard free music as an entitlement. Whether they are right or not is pretty irrelevent.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Forking out €20 for an album is very steep.
I would think the profit margins on music are massive, especially if you are downloading from Itunes.

Given that the distribution costs are almost zero....... well yeah !

TPD · 17-04-2010 01:54PM

I do download music. When a band I like is playing a gig near me, I'll go to see it and buy a t shirt or something. Or when a band is giving away an album for free/donation, I'll give them some money.

I don't like giving music industries more money and therefore more power to interfere with my freedoms. They either need to change or GTFO.

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 01:56PM

liah wrote: »

K, change "shirt" to "packet of taytos."

its still not the same you cant make more taytos

by copying the cd you are producing a new product that would have had to be purchased had you not created it

you can give your purchased cd to your friend no problem at all copying it and giving it to them is stealing(im not judging i have done it but dont kid yourself about what your doing)

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 01:58PM

TPD wrote: »

I do download music. When a band I like is playing a gig near me, I'll go to see it and buy a t shirt or something. Or when a band is giving away an album for free/donation, I'll give them some money.

I don't like giving music industries more money and therefore more power to interfere with my freedoms. They either need to change or GTFO.

so you prefer the current state of affairs which is illegal downloading causing the record labels to fail / be bought over which means fewer people in control of what is released which means less distribution of wealth. it also mean they have too much power in the industry and can choose what they will or wont release(they can even pay people NOT to release music and they do do this). so by illegally downloading you are actually increasing their control over you not decreasing it

cornbb · 17-04-2010 02:03PM

Yes, you should pay for your music. Yes, it sucks to be paying a middleman who are probably screwing the musicians, but at least that way the artist gets paid. Better to get paid something than nothing at all.

Support indie labels or pay musicians directly where you can. Musicians need to rebel or form a union or something, the fact that four companies control 80% of music distribution and reap the lions share of the revenue in the Internet age is a disgrace.

But that shouldn't be an excuse to pay nothing at all.

WindSock · 17-04-2010 02:03PM

I really have no trouble downloading music. You make music, people enjoy it. You generate income from your gigs.
Entertainers make far too much money from sales of their records.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 17-04-2010 02:08PM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Why, its free on the Radio.

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/home_taping_is_killing_music.gif

liah · 17-04-2010 02:11PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

its still not the same you cant make more taytos

by copying the cd you are producing a new product that would have had to be purchased had you not created it

you can give your purchased cd to your friend no problem at all copying it and giving it to them is stealing(im not judging i have done it but dont kid yourself about what your doing)

I take it you've never made a mix tape with a cassette and the radio, then.

Basically it breaks down like this: If someone lets you borrow a CD, you copy that CD and save it for just yourself (which is what 99% of filesharers do) and do not give it to anyone else, it's the same as borrowing a tshirt or anything else. Do you think that is wrong? Is the person who let you borrow it wrong? I don't think so.

Like I said previously: if I had the money I would pay for it. I do not. I don't give my music to anyone else, and what anyone else chooses to do with what they download isn't my business or fault. The majority of music being downloaded is created by millionaires. They have everything they need, more than everything they need. So do the record company employees. I don't. They'll survive without a couple bucks. Sure, they'd probably wipe their arses with it. Me? I need that couple bucks. And I'd also like to try to enjoy life a little, too. They can make money off of gigs and merchandise and the other millions of people who actually will buy the record.

Everyone has the right to enjoy the little things in life.

But then again, I'm a socialist rather than a capitalist.

17-04-2010 02:17PM

Before typing this, I deleted my Leftism album and tested how long it took to get it back into my iTunes.. I got 850 kb/s download speed from the first result on Google and it took 20 seconds to un-rar and add to iTunes.
It took roughly two and a half minutes before I could listen to it.. Faster than ripping a CD or using iTunes store. If I was a millionaire, I'd still do it this way out of convenience.

Is it right or wrong? Read this article to see how the music industry works and then decide what to make of it..

And mods, I presume a google result isn't against the charter when discussing piracy.

yogy · 17-04-2010 02:21PM

Bands make most of their music from live gigs. Record companies take the lion's share of album sales which is used to promote new talent.
In the age of the internet the need for record labels to get you heard is becoming less and less..
I haven't bought music for years..

However I spend the guts of 1500€ or so a year on supporting artists..
by going to as many festivals and gigs as my pocket allows!

twinQuins · 17-04-2010 02:21PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

its still not the same you cant make more taytos

by copying the cd you are producing a new product that would have had to be purchased had you not created it

you can give your purchased cd to your friend no problem at all copying it and giving it to them is stealing(im not judging i have done it but dont kid yourself about what your doing)

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 02:23PM

liah wrote: »

I take it you've never made a mix tape with a cassette and the radio, then.

Basically it breaks down like this: If someone lets you borrow a CD, you copy that CD and save it for just yourself (which is what 99% of filesharers do) and do not give it to anyone else, it's the same as borrowing a tshirt or anything else. Do you think that is wrong? Is the person who let you borrow it wrong? I don't think so.

it isnt the same as letting your friend borrow your t-shirt. it is the same as buying / stealing a t-shirt and then using sophisticated technology to make an exact copy of it and giving that to your friend allowing both of you to wear the now two stolen tshirts at the same time

The majority of music being downloaded is created by millionaires. They have everything they need, more than everything they need. So do the record company employees. I don't.

im going to assume you have a job. by your logic someone who is homeless and has no money is entitled to steal your property because you have everything you need to survive and you will survive without the 20quid they take from your pocket

They can make money off of gigs and merchandise and the other millions of people who actually will buy the record.

but what if everyone took your view?

Everyone has the right to enjoy the little things in life.

so you feel you have the right to steal?

But then again, I'm a socialist rather than a capitalist.

and its that sort of unsustainable opinion on the world that is the reason no socialist should ever be in control of anything important

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 02:25PM

Morkarleth wrote: »

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

and being blindly ignorant dosnt make it right

4zn76tysfajdxp · 17-04-2010 02:25PM

Ooooooh! It's on naw!

twinQuins · 17-04-2010 02:31PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

and being blindly ignorant dosnt make it right

Care to point out where I said that?

MrStuffins · 17-04-2010 02:39PM

lizt wrote: »

It costs more but at least I don't have to watch my back.

it sounds like you're describing Protection Money

Iwasfrozen · 17-04-2010 02:41PM

No, we shouldn't pay for money. Why do people think we should ?

liah · 17-04-2010 02:41PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

it isnt the same as letting your friend borrow your t-shirt. it is the same as buying / stealing a t-shirt and then using sophisticated technology to make an exact copy of it and giving that to your friend allowing both of you to wear the now two stolen tshirts at the same time

Not quite. One person (the "friend") originally bought that album. That person let me borrow it. I would not have been able to give money for the album either way, therefore the record company is not losing money. It's just not gaining it. I also do not give it to anyone else.

Basically, the seller's position remains completely unchanged, which means it isn't stealing. Stealing is when the seller does not receive any income to replace the value of something taken. Since the seller received payment for the original copy of the album, and would not receive payment from me at any time regardless of the existence of the copied version, how does this equate to stealing? I have not taken any money from the seller nor denied them money, and (in my already-stated position) if I'd had the money, I would have paid for it, and would do once I got the money. So no matter what, nothing is changed from the seller's point of view.

Not stealing.

im going to assume you have a job. by your logic someone who is homeless and has no money is entitled to steal your property because you have everything you need to survive and you will survive without the 20quid they take from your pocket

Also not quite. This isn't stealing from Joe down the road. This is stealing from record companies and production companies who are worth millions. Their employees are monetarily covered at a (presumably) flat rate per year.

Take a loaf of bread, for example. Say this loaf of bread was made by Wonderbread, a massive corporation worth billions. A starving person steals it and eats it. Wonderbread experiences a loss-- for argument's sake let's say $1.50 (no idea about real cost). The number of people legitimately buying this loaf of bread cover the costs and then some of the one loaf that was stolen. Would you still send the starving person to jail and consider it "stealing?" Punish them on the same level as everyone else?

but what if everyone took your view?

Reductio ad absurdum. This is impossible. Everyone is different, that's what makes the world go round.

so you feel you have the right to steal?

In the simplest terms? Yes. I wouldn't fault a starving person for stealing a loaf of bread. Mainly because I've been there, I know what it's like. Just because the law says one way is better doesn't mean it's right in every circumstance. Life isn't so black and white.

and its that sort of unsustainable opinion on the world that is the reason no socialist should ever be in control of anything important

Different opinions.

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 02:44PM

Morkarleth wrote: »

Care to point out where I said that?

you are saying its not stealing, it is

the people here who are saying its ok are saying its not stealing thats complete ignorance but its ok cause they are socialists and dont believe in paying for goods and services, thats ignorance and its wrong

i have downloaded music and im sure i will again it is wrong because it is stealing but on the karma scale of doing things wrong ill take it. but thinking you have some sort of moral high ground over the 'rich' artists because you are a student or on minimum wage and can do no wrong because you have less money then them is ignorant as is coming up with loose analogies to justify stealing

mikom · 17-04-2010 02:46PM

To all those giving out about copying/downloading music, imagine this.....

You have a garden.
In the garden is a beautiful shrub you bought and planted 6 months ago.
Your friend comes to visit and complements you on the shrub.
They ask........ "Can I take a cutting from your plant please, to allow me increase my collection of beautiful shrubs?"

What would you do?

Davidius · 17-04-2010 02:47PM

liah wrote: »

Like I said previously: if I had the money I would pay for it. I do not. I don't give my music to anyone else, and what anyone else chooses to do with what they download isn't my business or fault. The majority of music being downloaded is created by millionaires. They have everything they need, more than everything they need. So do the record company employees. I don't. They'll survive without a couple bucks. Sure, they'd probably wipe their arses with it. Me? I need that couple bucks. And I'd also like to try to enjoy life a little, too. They can make money off of gigs and merchandise and the other millions of people who actually will buy the record.

Ah here.

liah · 17-04-2010 02:49PM

Davidius wrote: »

Ah here.

What's that got to do with anything?

MrStuffins · 17-04-2010 02:50PM

mikom wrote: »

To all those giving out about copying/downloading music, imagine this.....

You have a garden.
In the garden is a beautiful shrub you bought and planted 6 months ago.
Your friend comes to visit and complements you on the shrub.
They ask........ "Can I take a cutting from your plant please, to allow me increase my collection of beautiful shrubs?"

What would you do?

Nope, it would be

"Would you mind if i cloned your plant and put one in my garden?"

To which i would reply

"Of course not"

cornbb · 17-04-2010 02:50PM

I don't buy all these justifications about why music piracy is ok. It essentially boils down to the fact that electronic media isn't something tactile, and therefore people don't believe that they are really taking anything.

If, for example, someone found a way of downloading phone credit without paying for it, people would just go and download it. The justifications would come later. "The networks are screwing us" or "I'm not really taking anything by making free phonecalls. Its just a few extra packets of data on the network!" But if someone went into a shop and lifted a load of top-up cards they would be labelled a thief. Its exactly the same thing!

Also, justifying piracy by saying you're getting one-up on the label isn't ok either. Two wrongs don't make a right. The royalties might be a pittance, but you are taking those away too. Record labels might be evil, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are doing something noble by not paying them.

cornbb · 17-04-2010 02:54PM

mikom wrote: »

To all those giving out about copying/downloading music, imagine this.....

You have a garden.
In the garden is a beautiful shrub you bought and planted 6 months ago.
Your friend comes to visit and complements you on the shrub.
They ask........ "Can I take a cutting from your plant please, to allow me increase my collection of beautiful shrubs?"

What would you do?

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed because seeds don't have to get paid to live... reproducing plants is fine because nobody has to get paid to create them in the first place. By reproducing music and not paying for it, you are stealing intellectual property that somebody has created, owns, and relies on to make a living.

Again, it boils down to the fact that people wrongly believe that they shouldn't have to pay for something that is not tactile. Intellectual property is property like anything else.

Should we pay for Music?

Comments