Should we pay for Music?

mikom · 17-04-2010 02:59PM

cornbb wrote: »

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed because seeds don't have to get paid to live.

Seeds,seeds?
We're talking softwood cuttings or perhaps layering/air layering.

cornbb wrote: »

reproducing plants is fine because nobody has to get paid to create them in the first place.

So wrong.
Ever heard of plant breeders rights.

So you think it is ok to rip off the nurserymen but the music moguls should be left alone.

Ghost Train · 17-04-2010 03:00PM

liah wrote: »

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

but once you eat the packet of taytos there all gone

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 03:00PM

liah wrote: »

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.

borrowing it is not a problem copying it is stealing you are creating a new version of intellectual property that is not yours that you have no right to create

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

this is a convenient argument but you do not own the music you only own the right to listen to it the person who creates the music owns it and deserves the right to decide how and when it is distributed(why we have copyright laws) and you are stealing their property by copying it.

I have not taken any money from the seller nor denied them money

you have taken their service / creativity without permission or compensation, that is stealing

if I'd had the money, I would have paid for it, and would do once I got the money.

that dosnt hold up with your previous argument either you are doing nothing wrong and you dont need to pay or you are doing something wrong but justify it by saying when i have the ability to pay ill make up for it? it cant be both

So no matter what, nothing is changed from the seller's point of view.

clearly alot has changed because it has cost the industry hundreds of millions stopped careers before they have started and resulte din the further monopolisation of the music industry so a hole lot has changed from the sellers position

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.

stealing is stealing no matter who its from there are consequences to your actions but you choose to remain ignorant to them. if you were the only downloader in the world the companies could suck it up but there are hundreds of millions of us which in turn takes hundreds of millions out of the music industry

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?

you dont just get to make up any analogy and its relevant. you arent going to die if you dont get your music but there are potentially thousands of employees who will lose their job and need to steal bread as a result of your(and the millions of other downloaders) actions.

stealing is wrong but so is having someone starving in a country with a multi billion dollar industry so it can be justified because it is saving a life. you stealing music serves no such greater good

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

another way of saying i choose to ignore this point

Life isn't so black and white.

in this case it is you are not saving any lives you are being selfish (everyone is selfish by the way, i know it sounds like im personally attacking you but im not im sure your lovely, you just happen to be fooling yourself into thinking your doing nothing wrong, instead of just accepting that what your doing is wrong but you are willing to do it anyway to make your life better)

Misty Chaos · 17-04-2010 03:03PM

When I was younger, I downloaded a lot more music than I do now. ( even then, it wasn't like I was downloading thousands of songs a month ) Not that I don't do it now but its not very often, Youtube is usually enough for me. I usually get my music fix these days from pretty obscure acts that populate the web who release their work for free.

I've also paid for a few tracks here and there from itunes. I have no problem doing that as what I get is usually difficult, if not impossible, to find as a torrent or otherwise.

I still agree that record companies need to change big time though.

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 03:03PM

mikom wrote: »

So you think it is ok to rip off the nurserymen but the music moguls should be left alone.

cornbb · 17-04-2010 03:03PM

mikom wrote: »

So you think it is ok to rip off the nurserymen but the music moguls should be left alone.

Well, if someone has a patent on the breed of the plant or whatever, then that intellectual property should be respected too. Forgive me if I don't know a lot about botanical licensing agreements, if such things exist.

And I'm talking about protecting the livelihoods of musicians/artists, not "moguls".

mikom · 17-04-2010 03:13PM

cornbb wrote: »

And I'm talking about protecting the livelihoods of musicians/artists, not "moguls".

Nah, what you are doing is paying for the hangers-on and other such excesses.
You'd swear all these big artists would melt if they didn't get a new jacuzzi or porsche.
Christ if that's the case then many an artist like Brian Kennedy would have given up long ago.

* Not a Brian Kennedy fan, but he doesn't bother me either.

twinQuins · 17-04-2010 03:31PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

you are saying its not stealing, it is

It's not. It's copyright infringement, which comes under civil law. I suggest you get your terms right before you-

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 was going to say start talking about things you have no idea about but clearly we're in over our heads here.

Mike 1972 · 17-04-2010 03:34PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

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

So to stop them becoming too greedy and powerful we need to give them more money ?

FAIL !

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 03:38PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So to stop them becoming too greedy and powerful we need to give them more money ?
FAIL !

im not saying you need to do anything im saying there are consequences to your actions that you choose to ignore

It's not. It's copyright infringement, which comes under civil law. I suggest you get your terms right before you-

you are stealing their intellectual property i really dont care which law it comes under or even if there is no law that is what you are doing i dont think you should go to jail for it or even be fined for it but you are stealing their property

I was going to say start talking about things you have no idea about but clearly we're in over our heads here.

Cherrycola · 17-04-2010 03:51PM

What about the likes of Iomoio, where you do pay for the download, but at a much reduced price to iTunes, is this legal?

TPD · 17-04-2010 03:57PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

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

The point is, the record companies aren't needed to release music any more. If an artist/band is genuinely good enough, they can promote themselves for free over the internet.

And I really don't understand what steps you've taken to reach the conclusion that more piracy = more power for record labels.

PeakOutput · 17-04-2010 04:02PM

TPD wrote: »

The point is, the record companies aren't needed to release music any more. If an artist/band is genuinely good enough, they can promote themselves for free over the internet.

so why do people insist on downloading music owned by the record labels?

why dont you just download music from these independant artists?

if you dnt need the record labels products why steal it?

And I really don't understand what steps you've taken to reach the conclusion that more piracy = more power for record labels.

its pretty simple less competition = more power

Fremen · 17-04-2010 04:09PM

For the record, actual artists themselves make very little money from record sales. They make money from touring and merchandise. It's the distributiors who make money from albums. We're talking about one cent back to the artist per euro spent.
http://futureofthemusicindustry.blogspot.com/2005/01/music-downloads-jupiter-research.html

Distribution accounts for the price. Internet makes distribution obsolete. So...

TPD · 17-04-2010 04:15PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

so why do people insist on downloading music owned by the record labels?

why dont you just download music from these independant artists?

if you dnt need the record labels products why steal it?

Personally, I download music owned by record companies to see if it is any good, and if so the fact I've downloaded and listened to the music will mean I'll go to a gig of theirs if I'm able. I wouldn't buy a cd to see if it's any good. The band either gets money from me after I've downloaded their music, or gets none at all from me when I haven't bought their cd.

I do download from independent artists. If all music owned by record labels had an equally good counterpart independently, I'd get the independent version instead.

Nobody 'needs' the music, they want it. Coupled with the desire to not give record companies more money, to pay for more lawsuits and expand their influence over the internet, the only viable option is to download it illegally.

PeakOutput wrote: »

its pretty simple less competition = more power

I'd have thought it would be less income = bye bye record labels. Which sounds like a good thing to me.

johnnyjb · 17-04-2010 04:30PM

lonad wrote: »

I burned my CD's to my laptop , as far as I know that is not illegal :pac:

Im not starting a fight but anything could be made illegal even pissing with the seat down.I think times have changed and artists should realize this.Its too hard to control data like songs on the internet.They should try distance themselves from the thievin record companies

Im not an artist but surely you can how gain some small following if your any small bit good.Join sites to pass round your demos, if it dont work then you might not be that good and should audition for x factor and become famous that way.Artists in my opinion shouldnt worry bout millions but be happy there stuff i bein exposed , i wouldnt call cheryl cole an artist shes a money maker

johnnyjb · 17-04-2010 04:52PM

Hank_Jones wrote: »

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

Thats cause bonor is part of the eliteist Blair, Bush c*ck sucker gang.Im ashamed hes irish

Magenta · 17-04-2010 05:27PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of course we should pay.

All this whining from the record companies is bull.

It is about time they stepped up to the plate and gave consumers a reason for buying music over just ripping from YouTube etc.

They could include download packages that include photos, lyrics, videos etc.

Something else they could do is take your address at point of download purchase and the mail the CD onto you.

They could make it cheaper also, as obviously digital media is costing them less to produce.

Have download stations in HMV that you can use for free if you buy the CD.

The internet community is always a few steps ahead of them and if they hired the right people, they could easily catch up.

They could do something like, have a voucher for a priority ticket for the artist's concert or something. Something that you could not get unless you bought the CD.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

There are lots of (legally dubious*) ways to obtain free music besides downloading.

I wouldnt mind paying to download music provided:
1) The price was reasonable
2) There was no DRM restrictions
3) I wasnt forced to use horrible proprietry software like Itunes to download/play it.
4) I have access to the entire back catolouge of all the major labels (+ indies of any significance)
5) Decent quality. Not 128 Kb/s MP3 (or worse WMA)
6) The money actually reaching the artists.

Fecking 128 kb music is ****e, record companies- have some respect for your artists and allow their music to be heard in decent quality.

Pyr0 wrote: »

I don't really buy albums anymore these days, only special editions and the likes. I go to see the band live and pay in of course, I buy a tshirt or two if it's resonable and good quality, I even suggest bands to my mates and drag them along to the gigs. They're making more money from me doing all that than they would if I just bought the album. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it !

Just last week I spent 170 euro on band t-shirts alone, 6 of them were for the one band, their getting enough from me !

Yep. With most record deals, the artist makes most of their money from ticket and merch sales, and the record company makes theirs from record sales.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

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

But Bono, how are we supposed to pay our taxes to our native country, donate to the 3rd World, AND pay you for your music? :rolleyes:

Elessar · 17-04-2010 05:43PM

We should pay, but with pricing more along the lines with services like Allofmp3.com. And no DRM.

I'm online so much nowadays that for any music I want to listen to, I just go to Youtube.

Could this judgement extend to other software like games? Could any company potentially pass my IP to my service provider?

Adyx · 17-04-2010 05:43PM

TPD wrote: »

Coupled with the desire to not give record companies more money, to pay for more lawsuits and expand their influence over the internet, the only viable option is to download it illegally.

Ah come on, what ever about the morality of illegal downloads or whether it's stealing or copyright infringement, don't pretend that people download music illegally to get back at the record companies. Do you really think think that 15 yo Courtney downloading the latest Beyonce single gives a fcuk about the politics of the situation?

MJ23 · 17-04-2010 05:54PM

Why pay, just use soulseek

Mal-Adjusted · 17-04-2010 07:01PM

first of all, the record companies aren't losing money, they're not gaining it. That mentality assumes that everyone who downloads illegally would have otherwise bought, which is ludicrous. small difference, but still. i'm not advocating it or anything. i don't know how anyone can seriously claim that it's okay not to pay for downloaded music...but it's the way the world is.

Sheepy99 · 17-04-2010 07:45PM

Music is a free art and thus should be free for all, musicians make enough money anyway from concerts and merchandise.

Resi12 · 17-04-2010 07:47PM

Of course, I mean it's not like making music is something artists can casually afford to do especially if you consider their salary:

http://i.imgur.com/G4Q1b.png

RMD · 17-04-2010 07:53PM

Should we? Morally we should, no argument there.

Still wont stop me using limewire or the likes though.

fulhamfanincork · 17-04-2010 08:04PM

Does this mean say if I illegaly download music right now I will get a warning?

Hank_Jones · 17-04-2010 08:08PM

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Does this mean say if I illegaly download music right now I will get a warning?

Bahahahaha

This is Ireland, do you honestly think this country would be able to implement something that fast?

And implement it over the weekend?

I would think it will at least take them a few weeks, and considering it was previously a government owned company...
I would probably double or triple that time.

dasdog · 17-04-2010 08:13PM

There was a time in the late 1960's/early 1970's when some people believed concerts should be free (Hawkwind being a spaced out example of this). As ridiculous as that would appear these days with insurance, security, electricity etc, I went to a few warehouse raves in Holland the 1990's where there was no cover charge but you could make a donation on the way in if you felt like it. Anything that hurts the music industry which restricts and normalises music should be welcomed in my opinion however there are talented people (engineers, writers, performers) who put a lot of creative effort, work and money in to what they do and they should be rewarded for this if you receive enjoyment from what they've produced. A form of shareware should be adopted by the listener. If the artist is dead, I download gratis (I listen to a lot of 1950's jazz). I would tend not to do the same for things new but I don't like the idea of paying for the software engineers, secretaries, security guards, middle managers, advertising boards and other people who are involved in the (hock, spit) "industry".

herbieflowers · 17-04-2010 08:19PM

liah wrote: »

I think bands like Radiohead (I think it was Radiohead?) had the right idea-- release the downloadable copy for free themselves, and allow people to donate if they are able to. The idea's been abused, but is still a better concept. They made money from site hits and touring shortly after, plus the donated proceeds. Not as much as they'd normally make, maybe, but I'd imagine it was more than enough to cover overheads.

Off-topic, but I'd be a bit more cynical about Radiohead. They could afford to do that - they're probably a lot more well-off than a lot of other bands. The need to cover overheads wasn't as incumbent on them. Plus it was an innovative and unique way of publicising their latest release.

However, they did release that same album, In Rainbows, in regular format too, a while after the initial download release, iirc. And that release was a bumper CD package, iirc it had photos and some bonus tracks and the like.

But yes, pay for music!

Herb Powell · 17-04-2010 08:30PM

There is far too much good music to pay for all of it. 99c per song is too expensive also-if I payed that for every song on my iPod, I'd have spent over 2 grand-**** that! I honestly can't see much justification for the prices they charge. I am of the belief that everyone should be able to enjoy music. And I am in a band, trying to get gigs. The music industry is retarded

Should we pay for Music?

Comments