• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    "Steal from the Rich and Give to the Poor."

    I'm talking about illegal file sharing and downloading uploaded music from websites such as Sendspace and Rapidshare.

    I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on it? Do you find it it immoral? Can it be moral and even helpful in certain cases? Do you regard it as "stealing"? The positives? The Negatives? Should those who download music for free feel guilty? Or perhaps just the people who share it? ('Leechers' and 'uploaders'.)

    Hopefully we'll get a fairly wide range of insight and opinion on this matter as it's a delicate one.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Steven wrote
    "Steal from the Rich and Give to the Poor."

    I'm talking about illegal file sharing and downloading uploaded music from websites such as Sendspace and Rapidshare.

    I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on it? Do you find it it immoral? Can it be moral and even helpful in certain cases? Do you regard it as "stealing"? The positives? The Negatives? Should those who download music for free feel guilty? Or perhaps just the people who share it? ('Leechers' and 'uploaders'.)

    Hopefully we'll get a fairly wide range of insight and opinion on this matter as it's a delicate one.


    Personally, I find it immoral, and liken it to stealing (not that I haven't done it before). I honestly feel somewhat guilty after downloading OSTs off the Web. Soon after uploading it to iTunes, I am so filled with guilt that I just delete the files from my computer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    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".
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    It is stealing, no matter how you dress it up, but somehow it seems rather unimportant for scores which are out-of-print or unavailable in some other way and I find it hard to criticise anyone doing that (after all, the person who made it available is making no money from doing so, and the person who is downloading it would probably pay for it if they actually had the opportunity to do so). Doing it for new releases which are freely available for legal download, or physical purchase, is just plain wrong, and I'm amazed at the number of people who freely admit to doing it on these forums and encourage others to do the same.

    Now, there's a "friend" of mine who has downloaded things he couldn't wait to hear - but as soon as the opportunity presents itself, he pays for the CD. He did this for instance with Indiana Jones 4 and The Golden Compass. He also occasionally wears a pink t-shirt.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    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.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Steven wrote
    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.


    Perhaps you're correct. It's not like you're taking the files from any one person, but it's still depriving the artists and composers who created it the money they would have gotten, had you actually paid for the album. Not sure if that makes any sense... But to me, it feels immoral, regardless of whether or not it's technically "stealing."
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Oh, and excellent topic, Steven! punk
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Martijn wrote
    Oh, and excellent topic, Steven! punk


    Yep, I agree. I'm actually a bit surprised no one else has brought this up before!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    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.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    TheTelmarine wrote
    Steven wrote
    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.


    Perhaps you're correct. It's not like you're taking the files from any one person, but it's still depriving the artists and composers who created it the money they would have gotten, had you actually paid for the album. Not sure if that makes any sense... But to me, it feels immoral, regardless of whether or not it's technically "stealing."


    I see you're point, but I feel little to no guilt for the large record companies and indeed the artists since they get paid well enough as it is. When it comes to the smaller companies, the ones actually passionate about the music, that's a different matter and one where I might agree with your sentiments.

    I feel infinitely more guilty every time I drive my car or eat meat than I do when I download! But I wonder, how many people drive their cars, eat their meat, yet find downloading "immoral"? Not a point to be taken too seriously, but just an interesting thought I guess.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    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.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    True. Legality and morality are two separate topics (forever to be intertwined). My point with the meat/fuel example is more about the morality of downloading, and like you, I don't find it immoral in any way - which is what young Williams feels when he downloads.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Steven wrote
    ... Williams...


    Just wanted to point out that it's William, not "Williams." wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    Steven wrote
    My point with the meat/fuel example is more about the morality of downloading, and like you, I don't find it immoral in any way - which is what young William feels when he downloads.


    I don't think so:
    "it's still depriving the artists and composers who created it the money they would have gotten"

    The immorality is clearly connected to the infringement of copyright and comparable protection laws for intellectual and creative property. Seems reasonable to me!

    I don't feel that same compuction or sense of immorality, but then morals are far more flexible and thus easier (and at the same time harder smile ) to debate than law is.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    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.
  1. Interesting topic but one with pro's and contra's.

    Downloading stuff has actually made my purchasing more selective and easier. What I download today, I will sooner or later get legally if I like it, what I don't like, well no money was wasted over it. So that makes it very easy. What's the use if you buy something, you don't like it and subsequently sell it with loss... On occasion I still do that, to my own frustration.

    What disgusts me is the people downloading movies and music just for the sake of it, because they can do it... They have no respect for the artists that put much sweat and effort in making the product so we can enjoy it. That's why I don't download movies, only if they happen to be unavailable and so old / unknown they don't even show them on TV anymore. And that happens very rarely, because most movies I can find on DVD.

    As for film music, I have downloaded in the past but that was because the music simply wasn't for sale, I'm now in the process of buying the originals whenever I can, because nothing beats that feeling of having the album in his / her hands.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    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.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Ah, I see I see. Yes, me too. (Albeit very far in the back of my mind.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    DreamTheater wrote

    What disgusts me is the people downloading movies and music just for the sake of it, because they can do it... They have no respect for the artists that put much sweat and effort in making the product so we can enjoy it.


    See, I don't buy that (pun intended wink ).
    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.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Again I think there is a distinction here between illegally downloading music which is not available anywhere for purchase, and that which is.

    If I download a copy of Intrada's recent release of Invaders from Mars - well, there is no opportunity for me to buy that anywhere (except Ebay, in which case neither artist nor label nor music publisher nor anyone who deserves it would be getting any money from the transaction anyway). So, absolutely, there is no question to me that that is not immoral.

    On the other hand, if I download a copy of Randy Edelman's music from The Mummy 3, then there is equally no question that that is absolutely immoral. Varese Sarabande has paid however much they have to release that music, master the album, and get everything together, and in return for their efforts they have made the music available for sale from countless vendors and in different forms, all around the world. Illegally downloading that is no better than breaking into a supermarket and stealing some food.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Martijn wrote

    Sure, a lot of sweat and effort was expanded...and a lot of people were paid exceedingly handsomely for that!


    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    Of course I get what you're saying, but you seem to be targeting the wrong goal with that way of thinking! The whole system of licensing and redistributing is rotten to the core and not even vaguely applicable to a global economy and community...but rather than fix the issue between them (like those idiotic licensing fees), the problem is simply being rerouted down to the bottom part of the chain: the consumer.
    And guess what? The consumer is fed up, and vocal about it.

    And in the long run there's not a damn thing to be done but for the industry (including the record and publishing industry) to come up with a way that is viable.
    I can come up with about half a dozen viable options at least (including flexible or real-time licensing), and I would be hard pressed to believe that no-one else ever has.

    The problem is and remains that we're dealing with a branch of industry that desperately wants to keep things as they were fifty years ago...and they can't.
    The fact that downloading may (and to broaden the discussion: that's a VERY big "may" with a lot of academic and researched question marks attached to it) hurt a part of the industry doesn't make that industry less rotten.

    It's up to the industry to deal with the market and market demands.
    NOT the other way around.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorelenewton
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Southall wrote
    Again I think there is a distinction here between illegally downloading music which is not available anywhere for purchase, and that which is.


    Either way, it's still ILLEGAL, as you pointed out above. wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    I'd settle just for condition 1 to be met.

    (And even then I'll continue downloading commercially-unavailable stuff. ) smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    James you just pushed a button in me, yikes. You mean to tell me that if I buy three copies of Invader from Mars from Intrada at regular price and then turn around and sell them for $5.00 more each plus shipping I don't deserve the $15.00? Why? The artist has been paid already and the record label has made their profit. These e-bay people are living a dream of being in business for themselves (a whole new topic).

    In fact James being totally ridiculous there is probably nothing to prevent me from being first on the phone/computer when the release is available buying every copy and shredding all of them except one. The composer, union, label etc are all paid. As long as I want to waste the money I could legally do so. And who knows what the market would bring for that one copy.

    Thomas smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    TheTelmarine wrote
    Southall wrote
    Again I think there is a distinction here between illegally downloading music which is not available anywhere for purchase, and that which is.


    Either way, it's still ILLEGAL, as you pointed out above. wink


    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? (wink)
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Naxos figured out a way around the system until the John Wayne estate got involved with a picture. They own the recording and can do whatever they want. Your paid to do a job and if they sell 100 or 100,000 your paid the same amount. The John Wayne estate got Klaus upset to the point that he said this whole series wasn't worth it anymore. This is over a picture mind you.

    Did you know that the first 78 pressings of Laura featured 20th Century Fox as the composer and not Raksin. He worked for the studio, got a weekly paycheck and had no rights to his music. Today of course it is completely out of hand the other way.

    Thomas smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008
    Steven wrote
    ... 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? (wink)


    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).
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2008 edited
    I guess what I'm trying to say is there is little need to feel guilty about downloading the non-commercially available stuff. Dude, keep it! (Commercially available stuff is more up to you whether or not you should feel guilty, which you clearly do.)

    Another point I should make is how guilty would you feel if your friend bought a CD, let you borrow it, you ripped it onto your hard drive, and then gave it back? Is that any different to downloading it from the web if we assume that the uploaded music was originally legally purchased by the uploader? (Which in many cases is true.)