The difference is that those activities are done out in public. I don't support them, yet that can be seen as hypocritical, I know. I feel downloading is essential to me because I discover (in regards to the music industry) many new artists and talents that I would never hear about otherwise, let alone find their albums in stores. I tend to steer clear of movies, as they're easier to come by. But with TV shows, do you think it's so bad a person downloads the latest episode because they missed it when it was aired?
I actually don't download anything, though I will go to youtube or a band's website if there's a song I've been wanting to hear for a long time or something. I don't listen to recorded music all that much; it's just not nearly as good as live. I do support file-sharing, though. I'm not going to write an essay attempting to 'prove' that it makes the rich slightly less rich and the unsuccessful slightly more successful, but I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say it's so.
The trouble with Downloading (File Sharing) is that those that can't afford the music by the bands artists they like can get it for free. And i think thats a worthy cause.
I'm in the same boat as The Freshmaker. I'll listen to maybe 1 song on the majority of the CDs I would otherwise be forced to buy - why should I pay $15 for a bunch of crap I don't need? If I really like the song and consistently listen to it, I'll buy the song itself online. If I like most of the CD, I'll buy the CD. But I'm NOT paying for something the artist couldn't even make halfway decent. Usually I'll download music with a "trial" mindset - if I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, no loss on my part, and that's money I have to buy the CDs I actually like. I'm not the biggest fan of movie downloads because of the quality. If a movie only looks nice when it's played on 1/4 of the computer monitor, it's irritating. On that note, however, if I were to ever really get into watching movies (I've seen 1 movie in the last year and hardly even watch TV) I would just get a NetFlix membership. I know alot of people who've signed up and it's supposed to be great.
I realize that illegal downloading and file sharing (distribution) is quite popular, it's done behind closed doors in what seems anonymity, and the actual chance of getting caught and having to pay the consequences is pretty darn small. It just appears that the justifications--by it helping through distribution of an artists work and recognitions, the big record labels get all the money anyway and they don't deserve it, and a variety of other reasons, is just a smoke screen for the activity, and even if isn't the reasons don't make it right. And I am not trying to come off as some sort of perfect fellow. Nobody is. An example that's stood out in my mind for years (actually over a quarter of a century), because of the action I took and the total irony of the situation is when I was in school, in of all classes, a course called 'Christian Morality'. Okay, I was failing the class, and really strugging (maybe because I wasn't so moral ). Well, others (most of the class) were passing with decent grades, but obviously because they were cheating. I knew it--the students talked about it (a few were my friends) and I saw it daily on quizzes and homework assignments, etc., and I suspected the instructor knew at least some of what was going on. I talked to the instructor about what I could do to better prepare and tried harder, but the fellow, although a decent person, wasn't much of a teacher. In any case, I decided to cheat--justifying to myself I was only going to cheat enough to earn a C, so that my GPA wouldn't tank out, and/or I'd not end up repeating the class. I did cheat on a couple of homework assignments and a test, and began turning my grade around...but felt rotten about it. I stopped. Ended up with a C- in the course. In truth, as I look back, I could've spent a lot more time studying and preparing for that class than I did to compensate--working harder did have some benefits. But I'd convinced myself that I was justified in doing something that I knew I shouldn't. Maybe there was a lesson (going back to the class title) that I did learn. Just ironic. I am not saying that the illegal downloading and the example above are equivalent. I am just saying that sometimes people stretch for justification. I just had to admit to myself that, in the end, I cheated to get a better grade without doing the necessary work. Sorry if I went off on a tangent, but you're free to draw any parallels if they seem to fit. Terry
I'm not 100% innocent. While I've never gone to the sites and downloaded, I've had one guy send me music via email though I did buy the album after hearing the music. And I've got a friend who has added music to a sharing folder...<hangs head in shame> He wanted to share the kind of music he was into.
Considering they estimated that 6 million English broadband users download illegally each year, I really don't know how they plan to enforce it. I download movies illegally quite a lot, very rarely download music illegally. I don't really feel too bad about it, I also buy a huge amount of movies and will often buy a legal copy of one after having downloaded it, so meh.
Ha! See? That's what I'm talking about. Before if your music wasn't unoriginal and crappy enough to get picked up by a major record label, the only way to get known was via word-of-mouth: "Hey, you should check out Corpse Puke. They're freakin' awesome!" "Yeah, right", they'd say in their mind. Now you can say, "Here's a song by Corpse Puke." And they'll listen to it and go, "Hey, Corpse Puke is freakin' awesome! They've got themselves a fan!" Corpse Puke. File-sharing thingies are a great way for awareness of talented musicians to spread without major corporate backing. I'm telling you, it's the small-man's best friend. You find me one unknown musician who would not be extremely grateful if I took his album and shared it for free with ten thousand other people at zero production cost to him. And as for the big cheeses whose completely unreasonable profits from their crappy product are slashed as a result of file-sharing, screw 'em! Now everyone wealthy enough to own a computer can download horrible mainstream music for free! They're like Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the upper-middle class! Huzzah for piracy! AAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!
Clearly the people who are proposing this ban on internet haven't heard of Wifi. Pretty much all new laptops have it as standard, and there are open Wifi networks in all major cities. Even if they aren't open, a few braincells and 5 minutes on google will get a wifi password cracker. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just pointing out that it's easy. Also, I really doubt the doors or pink floyd or R.E.M. are going to be forced into bankrupcy as a result of my downloading their albums. It's especially justifiable if the artist is already dead . They don't need the money, and whoever is getting the royalties for it now, didn't earn it.
The fact that bands earn all their dosh of shows and merch is good enough compensation. ARTISTS are the people who matter. Big corporate record companies do not. If a band I like isn't signed to a big label, then usually I'll buy the album. If they are I'll download it and then go to a show or buy a shirt. Live music > any other music anyway.
So, logically, if a man works his life establishing a restaurant for example, after he dies, nothing should be left to his children because they didn't "earn it"? Folks who dined at the restaurant when the owner was alive should be able to eat there for free or drain the reserve bank account--and pass on the keys to anyone else too, until there is no value left? When the day comes that your parents pass away, there should be an estate giveaway? When you pass away, your bank accounts, assets, and anything you've built or saved should not go to anybody you desire, because they didn't 'earn it' anyway? Terry
If by 'restaurant' you mean 'multimillion dollar empire', and by 'works his whole life' you mean 'did a lot of hallucinogens in the seventies, had a modicum of talent, wrote a few songs and was in the right place at the right time', and by 'until there is no value left' you mean 'takes away a small fraction of the millions of dollars being poured into the deceased artist's estate', then yeah.
Things always get interesting when ethics, justice and the rule of law are set on a sliding scale based upon such notions as socio-economic standing, or even race, gender, and national origin among other things. Of course, by not answering, Forkfoot, one can only draw the conclusion that you'd like your wife/family to inherit what you might leave behind, even though they 'didn't earn it'. I sincerely hope that a day does not come when you or someone you know is wrongly accused of a crime, or a crime is committed against them, and a sliding scale is used by the judge and/or jury in determining innocence or guilt, and sentencing, resulting in unjust conviction and punishment, or unjust acquittal. Does it sometimes happen? Sadly, yes. That's one of the purposes of an appeals courts, and even that is not a guarentee or solution to all issues. But one can easily see the roots of the sliding-scales system's origin and perpetuation by reading this thread. Just one opinion on the matter. Terry
Agreed. The bands certainly don't suffer in fact some bands support this act such as Marillion and System of the down who even named an album don't buy this download it. Wierd Al Yankovick alsio wrote a classic called don't download this song. Heres the Lyrics I think the lyrics speak volumes.
I stumbled across this thread via google trying to find more information on this illegal download internet ban and I can't seem to get my head around it. I think I have a problem with the fact that all these multi-billion pound/dollar cooperations can get away with taking our money unfairly through the exploitation of workers, but we can't do it back by a few measly "illegal" file shares. The way these people, i.e the owner of one of these companies, get their money is not by earning it, it's though taking a tiny percentage of what the worker earns and keeping it for themselves, thus making prices higher to cover the costs of wages of the several layers of the heirachy, and of course a small addition to the final cost just to pocket a profit. It does not cost £10-15, or as previously mentioned $15-20, to make a CD, so why should we pay that much? What's so illegal about file sharing it anyway? Unfortunately I am not educated enough in this area. I though that it was just a result of a loop hole in copyright that people became aware of. I would like to touch on the concept of the data protection act, which too has many loop holes. In theory it is put in place to protect peoples identities but in reality anyone can access it at anytime, all you need is to know how. This does not protect the consumer and copyright does not protect the artist and/or distributor. Both concepts are idealistic and realistically never work. Like someone said before there is no respect, and there never will be until the "rich" begin to help the "poor", and vice versa. There has always been a divide in society between the well-off and those who struggle to make ends meet and there always will be because of selfishness. However, some "customers" of illegal downloading services like uTorrent do go over the top and abuse the system. If you desperately want to seek new talent use myspace or youtube. Don't download entire discographies or films that is just taking the piss! The odd song is fine but then go out and buy the CD, just wait for the sales to come round each year. Ethically I am against stealling, but I am also against making a huge profit for oneself! Why should these people sit in their big houses with their huge vehicles outside while there are people starving in the world. Do these people make donations to charities or help to make a difference? A very small minority, maybe. My issue is not neccessarily with the artist, but those that exploit people to get richer beyond their wildest dreams. I know that may have been off on a bit of a tangent then but I don't just see this as one issue but a web of issues that all interlink within the world. This world is corrupt and its all to do with greed caused by power. Consumerism is killing our planet but of course that doesn't matter as long as the guy at the top is getting his nice fat profit in his pocket every week/month/year. Anyways back to the topic, how is banning people going to help? There is always a way around it! There are internet boffs (sorry I couldn't think of a better term) out there who are probably already on setting up something new. I'm neither for nor against file sharing as yes it is stealing but it can be beneficial to the music industry in spreading the word of the latest artist. There needs to be a balance. There is so much more I want to say but I just don't know how to! Tasha
