file sharing music: Help or harm the industry?

[Norgus]

Well the normal music people download is not of anywhere near the same quality as a CD (unless you listen to both through shitty equipment, its a really high bitrate or even lossless) But the majority of downloaded music IS only of radio or lesser quality.

I also think the word 'steal' is wrong, to steal don't you have to take something away? You don't take anything physical or physically steal their money.

Lets sue people who watch TVs displayed in shops because its not on their own payed TV licence!

I am also one of those who feel CD prices are far too high, they say high price tags are BECAUSE of piracy and I feel that coulnt be a more backwards argument. Have they ever tried selling tha majority of CDs at a reasonable price like �5 a disk? I don't remember a time where music was readily available that cheap, so where they got the idea its bad busines practice is beyond me.

[karragh]

Here in canada(atleast where i see music on sale) it costs 17 dollars canadian for a cd(on average), how that translates into other currencies i don't know, so i don't know how this compares to other posters statements.

anyhow, I download more music then i buy, and i know this is wrong, but still i do it.... I believe downloading music in this fasihion is stealing, and if you are going to do it, then just do it, and don't justify it(i believe someone else said this...), jsut like a person who steals anything else, they don't go home and justify shoplifting from a store, they know they stole, as someone who downloads music like that should also know they stole.

so to sum this up, I'm a theif... and that should bother me, but for some reason it doesn't......

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Ok to steal is the right word because if something is not yours and you do not have permission to have from artist then don't take it. Doesn't matter if its easy to take or not. Anyone would like to see anything priced cheaper, doesn't mean that stealing it is right. Just because you think its to much doesn't mean the artist thinks its too much. And really it is the artist's music so their say is the only one that matters. About the tv displays.....that would never work because the stations give their licenses to the cable companies and those who pay for cable can show whoever they want their tv shows from their tvs. See with the shops paying for cable, they don't have to worry about licenses because they paid for it when they paid their cable bill.

[Norgus]

Your in no way the same as sombody who steals a TV or some cash....
You take a copy of some content (the term copy used loosely, due to lossyness) that someone offered for free.

My point is you don't TAKE anything whatsoever. You just don't GIVE either.

Does not giving make you a thief?

[Norgus]

Ok to steal is the right word because if something is not yours and you do not have permission to have from artist then don't take it. Doesn't matter if its easy to take or not. Anyone would like to see anything priced cheaper, doesn't mean that stealing it is right. Just because you think its to much doesn't mean the artist thinks its too much. And really it is the artist's music so their say is the only one that matters. About the tv displays.....that would never work because the stations give their licenses to the cable companies and those who pay for cable can show whoever they want their tv shows from their tvs. See with the shops paying for cable, they don't have to worry about licenses because they paid for it when they paid their cable bill.

So because the music industry contrasts the TV broadcasters on this matter, does that mean it should beillegal to play music to anyone you know from your cd player?

An aside, if music is going to be treated as a licenced content rather than a physical media, why do you have to pay more than the base manufacture costs when you re-buy the same music ona different media (i.e. you bought a tape or record, why do they make you pay the full price to get the same thing again on CD?)

[happy_gal]

What's worry me is even though you have the real copy of the cd, having a backup cd is illegal but by law, you should be.
There is a loophole in the law. By law, you are entitle to ONLY one backup of the real thing. But by record companies and games company(that why if you play copied, you need a crack), you are not.
I remember having a ff8 disk 3 scratched beyond repair. I have to buy a whole new ff8 4 disk again. I made a backup copy of it, by law, it's ok, but another law, it's not.

[karragh]

Your in no way the same as sombody who steals a TV or some cash....
You take a copy of some content (the term copy used loosely, due to lossyness) that someone offered for free.

My point is you don't TAKE anything whatsoever. You just don't GIVE either.

Does not giving make you a thief?

You are supporting a crime if you download it, well maybe you are not technically stealing, you are supporting and encouraging the crime to take place regardless.

You seem to be caught up in technicalities of the word take, 'define is' type of thing in my mind....

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

So because the music industry contrasts the TV broadcasters on this matter, does that mean it should beillegal to play music to anyone you know from your cd player?

An aside, if music is going to be treated as a licenced content rather than a physical media, why do you have to pay more than the base manufacture costs when you re-buy the same music ona different media (i.e. you bought a tape or record, why do they make you pay the full price to get the same thing again on CD?)

They make you pay more for the CD because they can and they have the right to charge whatever they want. You can play music from your CD player for your friends. But this is getting off subject because i just proved that music downloading is wrong, which i think most people knew anyway.

[GundamGuy]

Ok to steal is the right word

No it's not... Infringement, is the correct word... Your not Stealing anything, your infringing upon the copyright holders Copyright's.

Notice it's not Copyright Stealing, but It's Copyright Infringement that they sue you for.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

I put it in common terms but that is basically what music piracy is....but i knew someone would come in all politically correct anyway so it doesn't matter.

[GundamGuy]

I put it in common terms but that is basically what music piracy is....but i knew someone would come in all politically correct anyway so it doesn't matter.

It's not "Politically correct" it is just Correct...

The only reasion they call it stealing, is beasuse every one releates the phrase "to Steal" to wrong and bad. It's a clever word choice, of people who want to stop downloaders...

Downloading media of any kind, movies, music, games ect... is in no way shape or fourm stealing. Copying with out consent of the copyright holder, yes, Stealing no.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

It's not "Politically correct" it is just Correct...

The only reasion they call it stealing, is beasuse every one releates the phrase "to Steal" to wrong and bad. It's a clever word choice, of people who want to stop downloaders...

Downloading media of any kind, movies, music, games ect... is in no way shape or fourm stealing. Copying with out consent of the copyright holder, yes, Stealing no.

Good thing i still kick ass on politcal stuff, because otherwise i would be useless. :eyeball:

[Mistral]

Kosmo Yagkoto, despite his use of the incorrect term, has rather done a good job on covering why monetary rationales for theft are flawed. Morally, one could also get into the concept that the morally wrong action of one entity (The gouging-level overpricing of a good, in advantage of a near-monopolistic status over the distribution of said good, as done by the RIAA with digital music media) does not necessarily automatically condone the morally wrong violation of copyright law, regardless of future intentions regarding purchases.

Futhermore, the illegal copying is wrong despite the fact that it does not deny the original owner the use of the music, because its further distribution could theoretically harm the original owner (Though irrelevant to the argument, facts have pointed to the opposite, actually; posted sales of digital media have increased since the founding of the first P2P networks). So long as harm to the holder of the original copyright is possible, and plausible (Let us be frank, if one assumes the worst of people, perfectly logical, it is easy to see the validity of the concept that P2P networks harm conventional sales), it is morally wrong as well as legally forbidden.

On the other hand, the side I personally favour, are those who say that regardless of the morally questionable nature of this, the RIAA should accept the improved sales of digital media and the illegal actions that have helped this, rather than irrationally press for the widescale enforcement of the laws, regardless of harm taken to themselves. The two articles by Janis Ian, a recording artist herself, are interesting reading on the topic, and include research and data on the topic from the time of writing (2002).

[happy_gal]

Why not just buy the single so the artist can produce great quality of songs in the future. If everybody start downloading, wouldn't the artist/record company cut corner? (something to think about) and we will have more crappy songs. Have you realised now that most mainstream song now have the same beat?(one way to cut corners).
PS downloading without paying is stealing.

[happy_gal]

Haven't you realised that majority of the mainstream songs have the same beat (looking towards R&B)?. Record company and artist are starting to lack inspiration for producing unique beats now because of the pirating market.
If you want in the future the songs you want, buy the single/album .... or one day, lets just have trashy songs that only takes 2 min to finish because no one is earning money anyway.