Report 95% of Music Downloads are Illegal

[Seb!]

I don't think that these two things are strongly related. The ethical (as opposed to legal) arguments against "piracy" and other forms of information sharing are not that compelling.

Just because you're stealing in small amounts doesn't mean you're not stealing. How can you justify this "ethically?"

 

[esb]

I would buy CDs if I had enough money (Enough as in I wouldn't mind spending 10 bucks on a CD, which currently I do). Not like i download much music anyway, since I DL underground music.

 

[TheDamien]

I'm not sure what you mean. I just said I don't download illegal songs because I believe in doing the right thing. You don't think it's right to buy CD's legally online? I'm confused.

I think it is right to support an artist (by buying CDs or otherwise) if they produce quality work that you have enjoyed, but I don't think it is wrong or unethical to download or to freely distribute data.

Just because you're stealing in small amounts doesn't mean you're not stealing. How can you justify this "ethically?"

This thread is about downloading and file sharing. These things are quite distinct from stealing.

 

[Seb!]

This thread is about downloading and file sharing. These things are quite distinct from stealing.

The artist isn't getting paid.

 

[TheDamien]

The artist isn't getting paid.

Artists get paid for things that have been bought, not for things that merely haven't been downloaded.

 

[demotry241]

> The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
As a rule of the thumb, any and all statistics that came from IFPI, RIAA, MPAA and friends are not to be taken seriously.

agreed. it's like.. AL GORE's Report of the end of the world.

 

[Seb!]

Artists get paid for things that have been bought, not for things that merely haven't been downloaded.

I think you're sidestepping the issue.

More songs would be downloaded legally for a profit if these files weren't shared. Faced with a choice between paying for music and no music at all, at least one customer would choose the former. It's an indirect correlation, but a correlation all the same, between you illegally downloading music and an artist losing money.

 

[TheDamien]

More songs would be downloaded legally for a profit if these files weren't shared.

In the same sense, more software would be bought if good, free software alternatives did not exist.

Faced with a choice between paying for music and no music at all, at least one customer would choose the former. It's an indirect correlation, but a correlation all the same, between you illegally downloading music and an artist losing money.

You could argue on a similar basis that, by borrowing a book from a friend or by advising someone not to buy a product, you are "stealing" money from an entire chain of distributors, manufacturers and artists by indirectly affecting the chance that some product will be bought. The fact is that indirect correlation, on its own, is not theft.

I see very little else that could be ethically wrong with file sharing. The idea that some artist somewhere has rights to some bit sequence on some person's hard drive is preposterous to me.

 

[esb]

Well, I like doing it (pirating), but I'm sure I would hate it if I made something and people started giving off free copies of it when I'm trying to sell it and make some money. Also, the people that bought it might think it's unfair.

But I guess I could make copies of dollar bills (if they could be identical, since music files are idenctical), I wouldn't be stealing.

 

[w/e]

I think music companies should spread viruses. I think they should make a bunch of files open to the public (but secretly of course, so innocent computers won't be harmed), but inside the files will be music and nasty viruses. These viruses will be so wretched that no one will want to take the risk and download music anymore. Those few who can fight off the viruses will have to work for the music. The companies can make jobs by hiring programmers to constantly update the viruses and make them only affect music players. These viruses will also will have so many complex features that it'd be nearly impossible to find and use on other users. The companies can also pay anti-virus programs to not solve the problem. Thus the only competition would be the small groups of hackers who are too stubborn to stop.

Then another feature this virus should have is to copy all illegally downloaded songs. Find the source of those illegally downloaded songs and send an email threatening the user to stop downloading illegally or they will receive a heavy fine for their crimes. This will provide the FBI plenty of evidence against the person, and if it's a minor doing all these stupid things. Then their parents will get a harsh wake up call when they're taken to court to face a jury and a fine of $50,000.

Wow. This is evil, but it's great. Of course, these are all ideals. None of this could happen now.



Do you think bands want to work more than they do now? That'd be torture.

Companies already plant false torrents, and usually, they don't last long. One torrent tracker has even gone as far as to individually check every torrent it hosts, to make sure that downloaders won't get anything nasty.

I couldn't afford to buy music anyway, so the stuff I pirate is basically free promotion for them.

 

[Zakyath]

Since I don't have a job, I can't afford much. You don't even know how much I've downloaded. But I do buy CDs too. I'm not using all my money for it, but I'm getting quite a collection now.

 

[BANANAMAN]

I bet those swedish pirates have something to do with this

 

[jonadrian619]

I don't download free music, that's because I'm contented w/ the music and artists I have now (my uncle bought the cds and backed them up as MP3 files in my USB then I port those files to my iPod). And our municipality has an awesome FM radio station btw!

My average savings everyday is $.45 or 20 pesos in our currency, and I need to rack up those savings and shell them out in another time (for food and other materials). One week and a half of savings is literally enough for me to buy a CD. Original CD's of our local bands in our country (1 album) cost P200.

Two more reasons why I don't DL music..... YouTube and Datpiff.com:thup:

 

[Darthfett]

90% of the music I download is Royalty free music. (Usually it's some form of electronica).

However, the music I do download illegally is usually because I know the song. I am terrible at recognizing bands, much less albums. So therefore, my music library fills up with hundreds of songs, from hundreds of different albums.

There are a few exceptions: When I find a song I like, I will look up the artist, and find others by them. If I find myself liking a lot of songs from one album, I'll go out and buy it. However, I'm not going to pay for a song unless I know I like it, and I won't know I like it unless I listen to the full thing.

 

[Kelv]

In the same sense, more software would be bought if good, free software alternatives did not exist.

You could argue on a similar basis that, by borrowing a book from a friend or by advising someone not to buy a product, you are "stealing" money from an entire chain of distributors, manufacturers and artists by indirectly affecting the chance that some product will be bought. The fact is that indirect correlation, on its own, is not theft.

I see very little else that could be ethically wrong with file sharing. The idea that some artist somewhere has rights to some bit sequence on some person's hard drive is preposterous to me.

When an artist or software developer puts out work and wants to make money off it, they should be able to accomplish that, and its rather unethical to not agree to those standards.

Nobody should try and deny that there are songs one would purchase if they didn't have the ability to download it for free illegally.

I don't think you should use a book analogy unless you have a book cloning ray gun. Buying a book and giving it to a friend is like buying a cd and giving it to a friend. The producers don't frown upon that.

"free software alternatives" were created by the developers to be free and shouldn't be compared with software from lets say Adobe, who has to support its developer's lives, who recently had to lay off 600 employees. I'm not saying it's the main cause but it definitively had an impact.

I'm not a perfect citizen who doesn't pirate, but I hate people who try and justify it as having the right to do it.

 

[New_U.S.]

How I see downloading music, if a band/artist is actually good, I'll buy their CDs. CDs are higher quality then stuff downloaded on the internet. However if I like a song I might just get that song from different methods. To be honest, some artists might gain more from this. I'll get that song, decided that I like it, and then maybe buy their CD if they're good.

With the huge amount of money these people make tho, I don't feel bad sometimes not paying them more. Revenue from CD sales, Online Sales, Concert Sales, and Endorsements puts many of these artists making millions.

There should be some sort of fine print artist should realize when getting into the industry. "If you release a CD, it will be copied illegally". This isn't going to destroy their business or even make a dent in it. Besides, I don't view music as a "I do it because I have to job". There's a million other jobs out there that make you work harder for a lot less money.

 

[TheDamien]

When an artist or software developer puts out work and wants to make money off it, they should be able to accomplish that, and its rather unethical to not agree to those standards.

And why is that? Because you say so? Artists are able to make money from their work regardless of piracy, and it is only the status quo that informs us that artists deserve money for data that is, without cost to them, freely transmittable.

Nobody should try and deny that there are songs one would purchase if they didn't have the ability to download it for free illegally.

Nobody is denying that this is usually the case.

I don't think you should use a book analogy unless you have a book cloning ray gun. Buying a book and giving it to a friend is like buying a cd and giving it to a friend. The producers don't frown upon that.

I used the book example (among others) to refute the idea that the indirect effect on profit is what makes file sharing bad. Whether I am in possession of a cloning ray or not is irrelevant to this.

On the issue of whether copying is what makes piracy unethical, I am yet to see anything but assertions.

"free software alternatives" were created by the developers to be free and shouldn't be compared with software from lets say Adobe, who has to support its developer's lives, who recently had to lay off 600 employees. I'm not saying it's the main cause but it definitively had an impact.

Among the other million factors that might have had an impact, I'm sure piracy had its place.

I'm not a perfect citizen who doesn't pirate, but I hate people who try and justify it as having the right to do it.

I have personally never met or encountered anyone who believes that piracy is some sort of right, although I do acknowledge that these people exist.