STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

i'm pro downloading, and have no ethical issue with it. i don't feel like i'm stealing (obvs others have a different viewpoint). i use downloading as a tool for exploring new music. if i hear about an artist, i will try and download some of their songs to see if i like them. i can honestly say 95% of the music i download from new artists i end up purchasing so it evens out. 

i download for a variety of reasons. as said above to explore new artists. i also download remixes, rare singles, old stuff, etc. from artists that aren't available via any other means. (up until recently a lot of record companies stopped distributing singles, which really pissed me off). most of the time i start with itunes, which almost never has what i'm looking for, and then proceed from there.

for the most part the beef with downloading is from the record companies, not the artists themselves. bottom line the music industry is motivated by profits, and very anti anything that cuts into their profits.  i believe that artists make very, very little on the sales of cds, and that most of their actual money comes from touring. so when you "steal" music you're stealing from a label, not necessarily the artist. i think one of the most interesting aspects of this debate is the fact that a lot of artists (esp. newer ones) have started making their music directly available to fans to download, so obvs the idea that you're "stealing" isn't necessarily the case. 

the "industry" really pisses me off b/c it makes it really difficult for people to explore new music.  radio stations pretty much play the same songs, and mtv plays the same videos. it's funny b/c a lot of the time unless you search, and i mean really look under every rock, you never realize how other music there is out there, outside of what comes through mtv, major labels, etc.  most of the major "new" artists out there have been packaged & processed via the industry in an effort to make them more marketable. it's really frustrating b/c i feel like it makes it harder to find authentic musicians. i don't mean authentic in some sort of music snob way, but in the most literal sense of artists making the music they want to make. 

also i think there's such a double standard. there's all this hoopla over downloading, but no one really talks that much about the payola scandal where record companies essentially bribed radio stations to play specific music.

I come at it from a different perspective. I'm of the mind that art should be free. I pay a small, nominal fee to get into a museum (and nothing to see visual art at galleries, stores, etc.), I pay nothing for a library card or to go to Barnes and Noble to read mags, I pay nothing to listen to the radio (the whole "radio should be free" campaign helps support this argument), and I don't see why I should have to pay lots of money to hear a musician's art.

That said, I, like honey, use downloading as a catalyst to find new artists. A perfect example is that I downloaded Rilo Kiley in 2004 - never head them before - and yesterday I bought Jenny Lewis' new cd (lead singer of Rilo Kiley). I'm not opposed to buying a cd every now and then but I'm not about to give $15 out when I don't even know if I'll like the music.

I'll also add that musicians get screwed over royally by record companies when it comes to cd sales, so they're not making any money anyway. Most musicians don't give a rat's ass if you download or buy cds because they just want you to hear their stuff and come out to see them when they're in your town. The only musicians who make money off of cd sales, and therefore care immensely, are people like Madonna and Metallica and other very highly-paid "musicians." And they can kiss my ass. I'm not buying or downloading their stuff, no matter what. Of course I can't blame them. The rich want to get richer. Makes perfect sense to me.

First of all, I would like to distinguish between legal downloads and illegal downloads.  I am all for itunes, the new Napster, etc.  These companies are licensed to distribute music, and they are selling us a license to copy it. 

Now, I am against illegal downloading for one reason and one reason only: it is illegal!  If it were not illegal...I would be downloading left and right.  I think what we have is a situation where the technology is just moving way too quickly for the industry or the law to keep up with.  Even the newer laws aimed at digital technology, are not keeping up with the technology trends.

I do know that record companies are getting wiser and restructuring their deals with artists in an attempt to keep up with it all.

Maddie wrote:

---

I guess if you think it's immoral because it's illegal don't you do other things that are illegal? (I don't mean this in an inflammatory way, just asking.)

---

I don't think it is "immoral" so to speak.  And yes, I've jaywalked, sped in my car, drank alcohol before I was 21, and yes, I even stole a piece of gum from Cheathams Grocery Store at the age of 5, etc.  And I have even burned a CD off of itunes or from another CD I purchased to share with a friend.  But, there is no way to track that...it is not something on the internet that can be spyed upon. 

When I choose to do something illegal, I weigh the risks, the consequences, and then proceed.  I speed because it is usually worth it if I am late, the fine is maybe $100-$200 bucks.  I think that sometimes it is worth it to go over 5-7 mph.

When it comes to downloading illegally, I have heard too many real life stories about real life lawsuits against people, one girl I knew only downloaded 20 songs!  And these lawsuits don't go away unless you settle for $3,000!  I do not have $3000 or the money for an attorney to fight for me.  And although some artists don't mind, unless the artist himself puts the songs out there on his/her website for me to get for free...I assume that it is not okay. 

I am not saying that the only reason I do not do it is because of the risk of getting caught.  I also have other issues with it.  It does affect the artists, even if not directly.  And it was the artist's decision to sign the deal that transfers the copyrights to the label.

I can't tell you how many times a cd will surface online before it has even been released in the stores...I just think there is something wrong about that (not wrong=immorral, but wrong=unfair or unjust).  And I know many people that just do it to sample things that they eventually go buy...but MANY people never buy music anymore.

I think that just because the technology is out there and "everyone" is doing it, that isn't a valid reason to do it too.  If someone left an ATM open, would it be okay to walk up and grab a couple $100 or even a few $1000 dollars?

I'm sure there are holes in my position, and I am able to see various aspects of the other side's point of view as well.  But for some reason this just doesn't sit right with me.

I'm absolutely for it. 

I get really fired up about this.  So much so that it is hard for me to articulate.  Essentially, record labels are already ripping off artists already.  The law protects the record label profits not the artists.  Musicians make most of their money from tours, they might get a few cents from a record sale if they are lucky. 

This article does a good job of describing one of the main problems w/ the music industry:  http://www.negativland.com/albini.html