Robin Hood Philosophy?

Interesting. I myself am a little wary on branding it as stealing as you're not physically depriving someone of those files. I'm not entirely sure 'stealing' is the appropriate term.

Still, I want to see what others think. I'm very interested in a wide range of opinions on this, particularly from those "in the biz".

Even though I'm a happy downloader, I am completely disgusted by the idea that this somehow constitutes a "Robin Hood" mentality.
I'm downloading because there are loopholes in the law that make it easy for me to get around considerations of copyright.
That makes it legal.
But it doesn't make it right.

The argument often heard is that the industry is a crock anyway, favouring big artists and eschewing niche demands, and topping off manufacturing prices in an obscene manner.
This is true.
But two wrongs don't make a right.

Don't get me wrong. I'm ecstatic the music industry is in a furor, and I enjoy the hell out of their dying spasms to keep the 1950s well and truly alive. It's of great comfort that there is absolutely NO alternative but to have some major changes in distribution and pricing (and "artist"'s salaries).
Until that time, though, they wil try and increasingly make life more miserable for people who enjoy music, and people like me will increasingly search and find new loopholes in the law that will sabotage their every effort at hedonist selfenrichment.

But again: that doesn't make it right, nor some "noble struggle".
I download, happily, and I enjoy greatly what I get. But I also know it's not right.
So why do I do it?
Because I can.
And I guess that's pretty hedonist as well.

Oh, and excellent topic, Steven!

Not very surprising, TelMarine...it's a subject that may have wide-spreading consequences.
For one, anyone admitting to an act that is illegal basically opens himself up for criminal prosecution in the future...and the internet has a looooong memory...

Candour is great, but -as with everything on the web, especially on a public forum- it is wise to consider your words.

Slippery slope, Steven.
Driving cars nor eating meat is actually illegal (or closely infringes on many laws).

Morality is a state of mind and/or an agreement between (groups of) people, which may be translated to law (but as soon isn't).

I don't think the simple act of downloading is immoral in any way.
Infringing on anyone ese's rights though is.

Just wanted to point out that it's William, not "Williams."

Do you mean you don't think the point is just about morality? I suppose it can be read as more than that, but my point about it is I feel vastly more immoral by adding more CO2 into the air or eating a dead animal than I do by "depriving artists and composers who [create music] the money they would have gotten". As I said, not an example to be taken too seriously. (Particularly as I persist to do all three quite regularly.)

If that's not what you meant, I apologise... I'll, er, blame the heat.
Yeah.

Steven: yeah, I draw a somewhat artificial line between morality and law here, mainly because I'm not worried about the morality of it at all (in that respect we're saying the same thing).: artists and producers are exceedingly well protected from financial dismay (even though there are a lot of things askew with the agencies handling those claims, but that's a wole other topic).

I am concerned with the legality of it, though.

See, I don't buy that (pun intended ).
Sure, a lot of sweat and effort was expanded...and a lot of people were paid exceedingly handsomely for that!
Bono isn't eating beans from a can.
George isn't filming Star Wars with a hi-8.
...though apparently Britney and Lindsay are so down on their luck they regularly can't afford underwear...

That's the guilt trip many studios are trying to lay down, isn't it?
"Downloading will make the young and starting artists suffer."
BOLLOCKS it will.
Thing is that 99% of downloads are as mainstream as you can get.
And every single mainstream artist and their entire entourage and associated producers and studios make gobs of money.

So it's not an argument I'm particularly sensitive to.

But you're targeting the wrong people with that line of thinking. The people who have already been paid for it are the composer, the performers and the music publisher (which will be some subsidiary of the film studio) and their share of the $15 purchase price of the CD is tiny (typically less than $1 between them). The people you are harming are the record label. In the case of the small, speciality soundtrack label, they might pay $10,000-20,000 for the licence to release the music, and while the physical CD package itself only costs $1-2 to manufacture and distribute, given that typically a film score album will only sell between 1,000 and 2,000 copies, you can see how tight the margins are. It's people like Varese Sarabande who are being screwed by illegal downloads, not the composers or film studios who have indeed been handsomely-rewarded already for their work.

If the following happen, I will stop downloading:

1. itune or amazon provides DRM-free lossless format ;

2. itune or amazon offers preview of full score ( although maybe in lower sound quality) , not just 30 sec of samples.

And even then I'll continue downloading commercially-unavailable stuff.

I'd settle just for condition 1 to be met.

(And even then I'll continue downloading commercially-unavailable stuff. )

I think James is more than aware of that since that's not his point. He's merely noting the distinction between commercially available music and non-commercially available music, which is a very valid point.

In light of that, would you still feel immoral downloading the non-commercially available stuff? The music that is no longer making profit for the rich you appear to feel so much empathy for? ()

I'm not sure, actually. I mean, at one point I downloaded a copy of the Temple of Doom soundtrack, but I soon deleted that as well (not sure however if it was due to me feeling guilty, or just not wanting it enough to keep it).