Ooh someone is in need of some attention lol

Goodbye

Actually, I agree with you: art should exist for the sake of art, and not as some product to be mass marketed at consumers by an over-saturated capitalist economy.
That reply was directed towards Caryl's post, and the age range was just a typical example of a demographic here in the UK who download music for free without seeing it as 'theft'.

Great contribution.

So, you are happy to sell? ;) :lol:

This argument is void.

People put so much hard work and energy into movies and music, and to just take it for free, without them getting due profit is wrong. so wrong. especially movies.

Theres no two ways around this. if u download music without paying for it thats like breaking into a record store and stealing a CD. if its on itunes you should pay for it!!

Not that I'm defending anything, but:

No, it's not. Moral issues aside, when you download music without paying, you're making a copy, with no loss to the owner of the music. When you break into a record store and take a CD, the store owner has one copy less of the album, which cost him money to stock, etc. etc.

It's rather like going into a public library, taking pictures of every page of a book, and then leaving. (Except that you don't get a perfect copy of the book, but close enough.)

:twisted: It's an argument i've heard many times, and I still don't buy it (no pun intended).

One of the things many downloaders say to justify their actions is that CD's cost a matter of pence to produce, so how come they are £££ by the time they get to the shops.

Because the CD, the case, the booklet, they are not what you are paying for.
You are paying for the media.
That's where the art is, that's what cost thousands to produce, and that's what you are buying.

(note the lack of comic sans in this post :lol: )


I agree with Evil Ernie that art should not be done for money, but i'd argue that just because it's not done for money doesn't mean you can't charge for your art.

There have always been proffessional artists, and their art is no less great because they have the downright cheek to charge for what they spend so much time and effort creating :wink:

I doubt Michaelangelo would have done the ceiling of The Sistine Chappel if he was working in Burger King from 9 - 5 :wink:

http://media.mlxxfc.net/micbk.jpg

I'm not arguing that. Of course the cost of CD in the store covers more than just production.

I'm just making the case that the act of downloading music is nothing at all like stealing. When you steal something, the original owner has one less item of merchandise. When you download something, you've made a copy, and the original owner still has the same amount of merchandise. The two are fundamentally different, and I believe you can't have a decent discussion when you're muddying the water with appeals to emotion like "downloading is stealing, and thou shalt not steal, 'cause stealing's bad, m'kay?"

That said, personally I have no problem with paying for music. (Unless the artist plays the "let's milk the fans dry and release seventeen thousand different editions with multiple bonus tracks". Screw that.)

I see the distinction being made between the two, and while the original item has not been taken from it's owner/author, their earnings for providing a copy of that has been diminished because some people decide they are entitled to have for free what others must pay for. You could therefore say by the same token that tax evasion is not stealing.

Hmm. I was just about to reitterate everything I said in this thread.

As I said. Not defending it. Perhaps I SHOULD pay for it, but I don't want and I don't have to.

Simple as that.

Well, Michaelangelo was being paid for by the Catholic Church. And I personally think that he WOULD have done it for free, but that's impossible to determine.

Fact is that artists still make money. Somebody had to buy the CD to put onto the internet. And if it gets to the point where you can't make a dime (or shilling?) than it will really cut down on the crap.

But if you are 'just making a copy' then you dont need to buy it, therefore taking away a sale from the artist. So while you haven't taken anything physically you've still taken.

I don't really think artists should be told they shouldnt be in it for the money, i'm pretty sure the bands i see down the local pub already know that and don't get paid for alot of the time they spend already but the small amount it costs to buy their music isnt really such a hardship on the consumer. It's a shame we just expect great music to be made available to us. Easy to not think about the effect it has, kinda the i'm alright jack attitude.

What if I wasn't going to buy it anyway? Is it not better that I hear the album and have a chance to decide whether to contribute the artist in another way?

People will say, "listen to it on youtube." There is ABSOLUTELY no difference.

This forum has a big problem with people reading what they want to read.

As a musician I'm not gonna say that an artist should NEVER be paid anything, but I was no sympathy for an artist who is losing money simply because an individual is enjoying your work for free.

Enough people will contribute to make it worth it. Sales are still happening and it's not going to stop. Music has pretty much been free for over 15 years.

But once again, I don't justify it. I just don't pay for (most) music because I don't have to. Simple as that. At least I'm not on some soap box because I think that I'm so righteous and good because I don't DL music.

Fact is that I've pumped for more into the music industry in my lifetime than the average person ever will. I have very little guilt.

Let's wait for the next post to say the same thing that 15 people have already said.

:twisted: This subject has come up a few times, and could be discussed all day, and nobody would ever convince somebody with opposing views to change their point of view :bleh:

YouTube Video