Music Piracy

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

We've probably all done it. We've often been divided on the subject. Who is being robbed? The Record Companies or The Artist, or perhaps the consumer? From Napster, to Limewire to entire Torrents and Rapidshares. Is this right? This should be the definitive thread for all discussions.

Do you feel sleighted at the price of music? Do you gladly pay whatever sum in order to support aspiring artists? Should people be seriously charged over day to day music piracy? What is your judgement on it? I know this may be slightly biased, this being an internet forum, and hence inhabited by the very people who use such mediums the most, but I'd just like to hear what everyones opinion is.

Downloading Music Illegally, Yay or Nay?

 

[Leafy]

I have always payed for my music but with the price raise I got Limewire. I was going to download some music but before I brought it up I just felt wrong. I realized how these artists worked hard to create this music and you can't take it for free.

I believe music is an art form so I see using Limewire as going into an art gallery and just stealing pictures. It's not right so why should taking music be ok

 

[X]

Frankly I think music should be free. So should art. It's all art really, and there's no reason in my opinion that financial wealth should determine whether one is worthy enough to view/listen to some art. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be compensated for their work, but it should come through other venues. The majority of revenue that a band like Metallica makes is not from album sales, it's from merch and concerts as well as sponsorships/commercials. I feel no guilty downloading one of their albums, my thirteen dollars isn't going to make or break Lars Ulrich's bank account.

If on the other hand it's a smaller band, one that is not wealthy or very successful or well-known, I'll always pay for their music. Indie groups will always get my money, as will punk groups, because it's one of the only ways to maintain those great subcultures and their music. The other day I bought a vinyl copy of a release from a group named This Bike is a Pipe Bomb, and not only was I glad to do it, but I felt good knowing I was helping them out, even in the smallest way. With some group that's already selling millions of records, I could care less.

 

[The Doctor]

I'm totally with X on this one. Metallica are greedy *****, and don't need anymore money. I'm using them as an example, but a lot of bands are greedy. I'm fine with getting most CDs for free, but I occasionally buy one to balance it out.

I buy albums of lesser-known bands, always. Last album I bought was by The Protomen, an independent act that does some great stuff. I felt good that I'm supporting them by buying their CDs and merch, and get I shirts and music out of it, so it's win/win.

I like the fact that many artists are offering their music either for free or as a "pay what you want" program. More people should do that.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I like the fact that many artists are offering their music either for free or as a "pay what you want" program. More people should do that.

The problem with this is that most human beings are greedy as flunk. Sure Radiohead did the whole "pay as much as you want" thing, but remember, this is when they're already world famous and already rolling in the dough from all those other albums they charged for. The press they got from it as well most likely helped compensate a lot of the "sales".

A rising artist with his debut or second album is not going to give it away for free, no way in hell. They couldn't afford it. It the indie acts that we all support that are the ones that can't afford to do this. So basically we're looking at the mainstream artists that are winning Grammys. The problem with this though, is that they've more than likely become accustomed to a lifestyle and record sales, so its no longer in their interest to donate music for the good of society. THEY FORGOT ABOUT THE MUSIC MANNNNN!

X's proposal is an interesting one, being that all art should be free. Well, not free, as obviously they should be re imbursed for their work with life performances. But I think he's onto something when he says that all those royalties theyre getting for art they did decades ago yet is featured in some film is wrong. They should be donate their back catalogue when they've done what they can with it, and it can be used to benefit others.

But we still haven't addressed head on the issue of downloading. Forget Limewire. With Torrents you can down the whole album pretty damn quick, with album art for your iPod and all. Should artists feel good that their legacy and work is reaching a wider audience? If I were an artist, I would feel great looking at the figures and seeing how many hundreds of thousands of people have gone out of their way to download me. Then again, if I were an artist, I'd want that pool in my Hamptons house.

Does paying for an album make it more valuable? Since you are paying for that Katy Perry album with your hard earned money, does it transfer more worth and more respect from consumer to artist? That they are willing to sacrifice other things? This dynamic is lost in an online medium, as at no charge, music can be gotten whenever, and you may find yourself downloading an album for one song, or just to see what theyre like, rather than actually respecting their body of work. Random thought I'd thought stick on the end here.

 

[kerplin]

I think honestly it should be up to the artist themselves within reason. I often will buy the albums from the artists who aren't world famous, and rolling in the dough as was mentioned. But the bands like Metallica make huge sums of money just for going to the studio whether the albums sells or not. Do they really need that much more? Especially considering they got kinda lazy, and coasted by on name value alone for a while. Which is pretty disgusting IMO. Taking money from people for crap you churn out not caring about what is actually out there. I use Metallica simply because they seem to care more about piracy than anyone else.

I have a limited budget, so I often will download the music first, and then if they continue to put out quality work(not saying everything is going to be gold) I'll support them by buying their albums in the store.

 

[Mavericks fan]

I agree with Doc and X on this one.All art should be free.
You should support the hard working indies who wrote the song,played the song and made it popular without MTV or those crappy magazines that girls read-because in them if you pay more,you get more written about(at least in my country).If we were all artists,we would all be really pissed,but I am not going to pay artists like Britney Spears 50 dollars just to hear them sing.Hell no,they did not even make the lyrics or the beat of the song.All she ever did is look sexy in a video.And you can not even see it.Not even in a concert.I am for music piracy on popular bands or singers but if you download and indie you are either really porr or a douche bag.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I'm a musician myself and personally artists have to do whatever they can to get their name out. Its the record companies that actually care if you download illegally because they aren't getting the money from the CD. Artists only get their money through concerts and that's only 5 percent total. Downloading illegally only hurts the labels not the artist. also if you download music from an indy artist and actually go to their concert then your actually helping not hurting.

 

[HEEL Blazy]

For me depends on if I really really like the artist enough.

If I like one or two songs why buy the crap...Not worth it.

If I love all there songs(i.e Taylor Swift,Brad Paisley and few others) I'll buy the CD no problem cause A. Its worth it. Got songs I love on it and B. I love helping out my favorite artist with record sales.

But lets say for someone who just has maybe one song I want or two songs. I'll go and download it and since I don't have away to pay for crap online I gotta do it for free. But meh just downloading one song that is what..99 cents or 1.99 idk..don't hurt to much I think.

 

[The Dewbliners]

I personally will download a song or two off a record, to see if I'll enjoy the CD itself. If I like what I hear from those cuts, I'll run up to Best Buy, and purchase it. If I don't, I'll delete the file and forget about it. Just about the only bands I don't download are local bands, but that's only because they need the cash more than, say, Pearl Jam. I don't really understand how my active piracy is affecting any of those "famous" bands. But, hey, that's just my two cents...