Yeah, true.

I still see where Steve is coming from, most younger people today are much happier to just download as much music as they please, rather than fork out their allowance for one album at a time. I'm one of the former, just because I haven't got even close to the amount of disposable income to spend on buying music at a regular rate. Most times, though, if I really like an album, I'll always end up buying a copy.

I don't have a lot of disposable income either -- I'm currently unemployed. But when I have a few bucks I can spend getting a vintage album on Ebay or a new CD from an artist whose work I collect, I do. It's a treat for me.

I understand, the thing is that it's always been that way, but people didn't have the technology previously.

(07-24-2010 02:18 AM)cevor Wrote:  Not everyone is happy with something they rip off from the internet

I don't consider downloading music "ripping off", for a multitude of reasons. Nonetheless, I didn't say everyone would be happy with it, only that many would be, which makes album sales a poor indicator of how many people are discovering new music.

(07-24-2010 02:18 AM)cevor Wrote:  your rationale is extremely narrow-minded. Imagine what album sales could be if people couldn't steal music from the artists.

I don't see what you're trying to say here. You've made a statement of the form "imagine what A could be if B", without explaining why A is inherently a good thing. I could equally well say "imagine how much money banks could make if people couldn't withdraw money from their accounts".

(07-24-2010 07:23 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  No offense, but this is ridiculous. I was born in 1982. By the time I was old enough to get an allowance and go buy things with that money, PF was no more. So when I got into the band and started collecting their work.....they weren't out there making more albums and touring. So by your rationale, I shouldn't have bought any of the vinyl albums/CDs that I did, because they weren't making anything at the time and buying the older stuff is just a waste.

I'm sorry, but I don't think so. How else is someone going to start collecting an artist's work that they like unless they buy it? I'm not going to download something I want to physically have. I like taking the vinyl out and putting it on my record player -- you can't do that with an mp3.

I support Pink Floyd because I'm a huge fan. Part of that is buying their back catalog. It's not going to make a hill of beans difference to them financially whether I do or I don't, but it means that there's another person out there listening to and loving their music, the same as someone was when the records first came out.

In the case where you like to have a physical vinyl/CD copy, you're paying for the medium, not the music. In many ways, this is akin to buying merchandise, only in your case the merchandise can be played back on a turntable. Nonetheless, I didn't say that it was wrong to buy music or that you shouldn't be, only that I don't think it's wrong to get it in other ways either.

(07-24-2010 03:01 PM)cevor Wrote:  

(07-24-2010 02:48 PM)forreverendgreen Wrote:  

(07-24-2010 02:18 AM)cevor Wrote:  Imagine what album sales could be if people couldn't steal music from the artists.

Piracy is not theft. Theft removes the original. Piracy makes a copy. Not theft.

Sorry broseph, had to. :(

Good point, but it's still illegal

A lot of things are illegal that aren't necessarily wrong, like smoking weed.

(07-24-2010 03:01 PM)cevor Wrote:  and it's taking from the artist without their permission.

Taking what from the artist? In many cases, people who download music wouldn't be buying it anyway, whether it's because they can't afford to or because they don't want to spend $30 on something they don't know if they'll like. If the artist isn't losing anything, then you haven't "taken" from them in any meaningful sense.

Moreover, in some cases illegal file sharing actually helps artists to make money. I have discovered at least one band illegally that I later went and purchased CDs from, who never would have made those sales if not for me obtaining their music illegally.

Bottom line is that it's illegal. Period. No rationale will make it right. You're taking the work of the artist without their permission and not paying for it. If they wanted to give it away, they would. There are plenty that do and that's fine. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it then you can't have it, that's the way it works. Apply your rationales to your job, you work and expect to be paid for it, then your boss says she doesn't want to pay you or can't afford it. You down with that?

(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  Bottom line is that it's illegal. Period. No rationale will make it right.

Legality doesn't equate to morality. Legality comes from morality (or should, in theory); it doesn't define it. In this particular case, changes in technology have changed the effects of laws to bring them out of step with morality; this is reason to adjust the laws, not the moral code.

(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  You're taking the work of the artist without their permission and not paying for it. If they wanted to give it away, they would. There are plenty that do and that's fine. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for it then you can't have it, that's the way it works.

I've been having this same argument on another forum recently, and I have yet to see a single reason why this should be the case that doesn't rely on an invalid comparison of copyright to property. If you can give me one, I'll gladly consider it and see if I agree.

(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  Apply your rationales to your job, you work and expect to be paid for it, then your boss says she doesn't want to pay you or can't afford it. You down with that?

No, but that isn't a valid application of what I've said. In the case of published recorded works, artists don't make money for what they're doing, but for what they've done. A more accurate analogy would be losing one's job and then demanding royalties for work done over the period of employment.

I just realised that in little over a month it'll be 3 years since I originally first joined here.

Poo.

How do I draw a line through a word I have typed?

No I am not talking about when a member has been banned and an admin strikes their user name. I'm talking about how does one type a word and then put a line straight through it?

(08-03-2010 04:52 AM)Some Other Jackass Wrote:  How do I draw a line through a word I have typed?

No I am not talking about when a member has been banned and an admin strikes their user name. I'm talking about how does one type a word and then put a line straight through it?

You mean like this?


It's the strikeout tag. [ s ]word[ /s ]


Minus the spaces in the tag, of course.

(07-25-2010 09:54 PM)Parsifal Wrote:  

(07-25-2010 03:08 PM)cevor Wrote:  Bottom line is that it's illegal. Period. No rationale will make it right.

Legality doesn't equate to morality. Legality comes from morality (or should, in theory); it doesn't define it. In this particular case, changes in technology have changed the effects of laws to bring them out of step with morality; this is reason to adjust the laws, not the moral code.

This. Not to mention the majority of people who pirate music wouldn't be buying that album in the first place. Also, if a band is broken up for years, dead for years, why should I pay for that album? It in no way helps the artist. If I buy a CD for 20 dollars, very little of that makes its way to the artist. So let's say I've pirated a CD by Band X. I enjoy it, so I look to see if they're coming to town soon. They are! I buy tickets to their show, I buy a t-shirt while I'm there. And now Band X has received more money from me than if I had just bought their CD in the first place