Piracy (downloading... not stealing and murder on the high seas)

What do you guys think about it? I just ask because of, once again, stupidity on Bad Cartridge. Someone mentioned that they wish they had torrented the newest Radiohead cd rather than buying it. The thread maker proceeded to call this poster an asshole for downloading. And other people backed up this sentiment. Really?

Fuck off. If someone makes music, it should be so that people can hear it... not to get a paycheck. And I'm assuming that the people agreeing with that sentiment weren't musicians. I think you're an asshole if you expect people to pay $10-$15 just to hear or sample your music. I'm not saying never buy stuff. If you like it or want to continue listening to it, throw down some cash. You get cool artwork and a real disc (or vinyl or cassette). I just think downloading something to determine whether you like it or not is cool. And like I said in that thread over there, all the musicians I know are cool with people downloading their music. People can call me an asshole if they want, though. I offer free downloads of my shit and still make sales. I'm sure Radiohead or another famous band can do the same.

As someone who sells their music, I think piracy is totally awesome. I am fully aware that the main reason people buy my music is because they downloaded it first. Any aural artist that doesnt fully embrace piracy is a fucking idiot.

Really, I'm not too hard up on the subject in either direction. I like it when artists allow their music to be sampled, so the consumer may have a better idea as to what they're about to invest their money in. Radio served as the purveyor of this "try before you buy" concept in the old days when hits were all that the people en masse were concerned about. The advanced importance of the music album in the late sixties and early seventies changed that, and it wasn't until the nineties with the internet and Napster et al that the consumer was able to match the studios in avoiding a guessing game of what music was worth not only your time but your money. Though, needless to say, that evening of playing fields quickly turned into a massive advantage for the consumer, and one that's never let up. Is it a good or a bad thing is what you are asking, and I'd say I don't really know, and it depends, anyway.

Obviously, I listen to music online a lot. When I do, it's usually to see what's new and worth paying attention to. If I find something forgettable, I often forget about it. If I find something I like, I make note of it, and often times come back to it and maybe even buy something from the band if I've got the spare cash. My preferred method of sampling is a band's or label's official website (or official "listening site" like Band Camp or MySpace or something), showcasing samples they specifically selected an unaware and curious audience to listen to and hopefully become interested in. If they have none such personal website or it is insufficient, I try MySpace and Facebook fan pages, review sites, blog posts, YouTube, etc.. My absolute last resort is downloading, often reserved for things long out of print and extremely rare--basically, where no other way to listen to the music is feasibly possible.

In the end, I'm all for bands and artists doing whatever they want, really. That includes making a masterpiece that they put up on the internet in a lossless format for free while also offering to sell a physical disc with awesome artwork and packaging for a mere $5, just so they're able to cover printing & pressing and packaging & shipping costs. But it also includes making a piece of unlistenable shit that costs 20 million dollars for producers, promotion, RIAA and lawyer fees, creating a special copy-proofed disc and selling it for $18.98 and making it only available at Wal-Mart. Is the latter really so much what the artist wants and not their manager and record label? Who's to say? And so what either way. It's their prerogative. Is that type of artist often even the kind I'd like to listen to anyway? Usually not, so I suppose there is some bias there. Not to mention that I'm both a collector and physical media junkie at heart, so what do I know about defending either side.

What does get me though are people who ONLY download, and especially only download illegally. As a music fan, I find it insulting when somebody approaches me with their overpriced iPod that they'll gladly plunk down $300 for, but it's full of incorrectly tagged/labeled songs that have been torrented at a terrible bitrate and that they'd just as soon hear if they turned off their iPod and turned on the radio. And why did you still download it from KaZaA or LimeWire when the artist offered it for free on their website? I find shit like that both confusing and maddening. My exact thought of people like this is, "You don't even like music, do you? You just like having this thing like everybody else has."

So did piracy change the music industry at large? Definitely. Was the music industry in need of a change, even if this isn't the change they themselves had in mind? Definitely. One thing I know I will definitely never, ever do is pay for one single song that I download. If I download it, it's because I wanted to listen to it without paying for it, asshole. If you're putting it up online, and especially only online, put it up for free and/or with the option to give donations. Because that's what artists are supposed to do: accept donations to have the ability to continue their art.

Downloading is rad, illegally or otherwise. It's always cool when an artist is willing to offer free downloads of an album or individual tunes. And yeah, I sometimes like to hear what I'm getting into first before buying. Nowadays I usually do this using YouTube to sample tunes, but a lot of times artists and albums I'm interested in aren't on there.

I buy a shite-load of stuff, as you'll soon see when I get all these pictures of my room uploaded. :o I like buying CDs, movies, all that. I pirate things, but if I like them enough and they're affordable and I have the fun(d)s, I'll buy things I like. For example, I downloaded The Smiths' The Queen Is Dead years ago, and finally bought a copy on CD a couple months ago. It's something I liked enough to own.

That said, it really does bug me a lot when people don't buy stuff. I have a few friends who download EVERYTHING and never pay a dime for any of it. That pisses me off a great deal. If you enjoy something, PAY THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT. Even if distributors and not the artists themselves get most of the income, it still lets those labels and studios know that people like this sheeit, and it will encourage more. For these reasons I always try to buy video games, movies, cartoons, and music that I like.

And sometimes I'll even buy stuff digitally. A few days ago, instead of buying some physical CDs of J.G. Thirlwell (Foetus, Steroid Maximus, etc.) albums, I went to his site and bought MP3s at a cheaper price, AND the money goes directly to him, and none of it would have had I bought the physical CDs, because I'd either be buying used, or, if new, the CDs I wanted are actually unauthorized releases, so he sees no royalties from them.

Yeah...

ITT: me and Ab say the same thing.

[edit]: and at the same time.

Wasn't In Rainbows free?

Doesn't Radiohead suck fat donkey cock?

The free In Rainbows download is kinda ghey 'cos it's less tracks than the commercial release, if I recall—and it was confined to some shitty low bitrate like 160kbps.

It was more touted as being "revolutionary" for the approach than anything. Though I can't recall how prevalent Band Camp and the like were at the time, so I'm not sure really how revolutionary or simply novel it was--at least a small revolution (or moreover, probably just a sign of the times) for a then-successful major label act, no doubt. But then Nine Inch Nails came along and did it better, and now near everybody who already developed or is developing their fanbase largely through online outlets is doing it better again.

I like Radiohead. They do not suck donkey cock, fat or otherwise. They may be a bit full of themselves for thinking they changed the music industry or that they can justify all the various versions of albums they've been producing, among other things. But they still make pretty dope music. Though, as a clue to how much I liked In Rainbows, that's an album I downloaded for free and have yet to this day purchase a copy of

They're kinda cool I guess. I own a few CDs, bought way back in the day, but they kinda bug me. Faggy pretentious music really bugs me, unless it's exceptionally faggy like Bowie or Visage.

Since i support things like murder and racism stealing some songs off of the internet is the least of my cares.

I would make a longer response to this right now but I have a bunch of shit to do in a limited amount of time.

I will add that I'm apparently a hippie for thinking people should have access to music for free.

I dislike both extremes on the issue, but I really dislike the people that act like actually buying music is the most absurd thing they've ever heard.

I've got a fairly large CD collection, and I really enjoy buying CDs. Much more than I probably should. However, sometimes I like to sample and download a couple tracks/entire albums to get a feel for a band as well. I own just about everything that I've downloaded and at least reasonably enjoy, unless the primary reason why I downloaded it was because it would cost me a fortune to buy.

Yeah. I have a sizable cd collection, too. Probably not to the extent of what some of you have, but I have no problem buying cds from artists I enjoy.

I have a question since youtube was brought up, do you think that is different than just directly downloading a cd? You can't burn a cd with youtube videos... so I guess that does make a difference. This spindle of discs I'm using for Lance of Longinus has been here for 2 years probably. Personally, I don't like burning cds. If I want an actual disc to use in my car or something I'll just buy the damn thing. Apparently I like it enough that I want to put it in various places to listen to it's worth paying for. But yeah, back to youtube. It's still listening to the music without paying for it. So it's about on equal ground of piracy to me. With youtube being slightly less 'evil' because you can't burn it to disc.

Mainly, when I download I might put it on my iPod. So then I can listen to an album if I'm in class or doing something. It gives me a chance to just listen to music when I'm not actively doing it. I'm a fan of passive listening... just have some background music on and go about my business.

Buying digitally is something I dislike. If you're only offering the cd online, let me download it. I don't want to pay for sound files. I want to pay for something physical to hold. I have bought one EP digitally, though. Spinnerette's Ghetto Love. I really liked it and that was the only way to get it... so I said fuck it and paid the $5. If you leave me no choice but to download it and the options are free or pay, I'm going with free. Throw out a physical version of that same thing and I'll more than likely buy it.

Also, what do you guys think of artists that are incredibly anti-piracy/downloading and would sue their fans for downloading? Artists want to get paid, I understand. I want to get paid, but I'm not going to make you pay just to give it a listen. If you like it, you'll probably buy it. If you don't like it you probably won't be listening to it anyway. And this is pretty much where the argument on the other board was. I think it's a dick move to require people to pay just to hear your music. Let people listen, if they like it you'll get money. Honestly, if there is a band that hates on people for downloading their cd I'm less likely to buy from them. If a band offers me a free digital copy to try out, I'm more likely to buy simply for the fact that they're being cool about the situation. I want to support the artists that actually are about their music and not the ones doing it just to try to get paid without a 'real' job.

roughdraft_zero wrote:

It was more touted as being "revolutionary" for the approach than anything. Though I can't recall how prevalent Band Camp and the like were at the time, so I'm not sure really how revolutionary or simply novel it was--at least a small revolution (or moreover, probably just a sign of the times) for a then-successful major label act, no doubt. But then Nine Inch Nails came along and did it better, and now near everybody who already developed or is developing their fanbase largely through online outlets is doing it better again.

I think Nine Inch Nails did it before Raidohead. Reznor was more outspoken about his hate for record companies and Radiohead is a band that just got screwed by theirs.

The member 'Hollow_Viscus' has done the following action : Dices roll

'Allegiance' :
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

jeffnogo wrote:

I really dislike the people that act like actually buying music is the most absurd thing they've ever heard.

Oh yeah, that's the other thing—two of my friends who download always say, "WHY WOULD YOU EVER BUY, LOL? THAT'S JUST DUMB, YOU CAN GET IT FOR FREE!" Makes me want to rape them.

My cousin's had that same viewpoint and smug attitude for a decade. When I ask him why he downloads music but buys DVDs and Blu-Rays he says, "Because I care about quality." When I then think about his iPod which fits the previous description I made, and his "CD collection" consisting of a CD spindle full of mis/unlabeled CD-Rs, his comment about quality, to me, translates directly to, "I am a movie fan but not a music fan." Straight up.

That's how my brother is. If I ever talk about buying a cd or a movie he says I'm wasting my money when I could just download it. Sad.

People feel like they're entitled to things. What assholes.

It's a pride of ownership thing for me. What's more impressive? A dude with a ton of Mp3s that you can't see or some guy who's got a library of physical music you can see?

This brings me to my friend who I've got to vent about a bit, though I think I've already done so. He basically told me that money is the most important thing to him. He doesn't want to have kids (he said they are a waste of money), doesn't have a girlfriend and no interest in women as far as I can see. He likes to have expensive tech stuff, like Ipads and always has an up to date computer, tons of HDTVs and this and that.

The thing is he lives with his parents so all this great stuff is there. He doesn't have his own place. So if we want to watch a movie on his super awesome surround sound system we have to do it early in the day (which he's not there because he's at the gym or at work (he works at the apple store)) because his dad goes to bed around 8 pm on weekdays or 10 pm on weekends and we can't wake him up or he'll get pissed. He buys the best Ipad but of course he won't buy apps for them unless they are free. (I want to have the most expensive stuff but I don't want to pay money to put stuff on it).

It's easy to act like money is awesome and all that when you basically have money to burn.

I dont think i have to say what kind of person your friend is.

I love pirating. I wouldn't have even heard of most of my favorite bands if it weren't for pirating. Though I am very conservative on what I buy, past couple years I've pretty much just been buying new releases of certain bands. If I get into a band that I previously hadn't known, and really really like them, then I'll probably buy their back catalog too at some point.

However, I don't bother buying stuff from bands that are already big. Trying to think of something recent that would have even been worth buying anyways.... Iron Maiden's new album I guess. I liked it a lot, but they're showered in cash already so my money is better saved for something else.

As far as the argument on sound quality, I honestly don't really care that much. Most of my listening time is done on sub-par headphones or in the car, so my torrented stuff isn't going to sound any different than a CD or lossless crap. The *barely* noticeable gap in quality is totally worth the gained convenience of having my entire collection right on my Ipod.

Hell, even when I buy an album, I usually just have the downloaded copy left on my Ipod anyways and will rarely even take the CD out of the case.

To your last point, I do that a lot as well.

I don't. I rip my own, my standards are better than the pirate copy. :p

For instance I downloaded a Raekwon CD I liked it a lot, bought it, then ripped my own and it sounded a lot clearer. If I had stuck with the pirate copy I wouldn't have known but when I ripped my own I was like, "wow the other version sounded like shit compared to this!"

I always rip my CDs, even if I have higher quality rips I downloaded. One reason is for space (I go no higher than 192kbps because I can't really hear the differences that well beyond that, and I'm already having the damndest time fitting what albums I really like on my 80GB iPood), another is for format (AAC compresses better than MP3, even if the file size is a bit larger), another is I just like having something sourced from my own physical copy I'd bought. And yeah, a lot of times the rip I do sounds a lot better than the downloaded rip someone else did.