Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Illegal downloading and file sharing IS theft, why don't you admit it? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You wouldn't download a car...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beadle's About)
    Epic fail.
    I like how youre just some fat old ******* using hip internet phrases completely out of context. Its not like youre here for any other reason but to vent anger at something that is uncontrollable. Grrr tpb stealin mah money --> Im gonna yell at some students
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day - if people are provided with an opportunity to receive something free at the click of a button, with little potential for reprisal then they will do it. Music or not.
    • Offline

      16
      Well I just admit it. And I don't care if it's theft because as people have said there is minimal threat of reprisal.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      "In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent"

      I'm not taking it without their consent, I'm copying it without their consent. Therefore I am not a thief when I torrent my music, but a pirate. ARRRRR!

      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Finding it very hard to care tbh... If you can't make a living then there are other jobs in the world, go do them. If you want to make music shut up and make it. How are you actually going to stop internet piracy? I'm pretty sure it's impossible. Stop whining and use it to your advantage (Arctic Monkeys being a good example)
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Same old argument I'm afraid....trying to make excuses for not paying for something.

      By not paying for the music, the artist isn't getting his/her fair share of money into their bank account (or paypal account). If they can't make enough money out of their music, they will go out of business and won't be able to record or tour with any more music.

      So it does hurt the artist by not paying, and also hurts the future of music.
      Your argument presupposes that every track I acquire illicitly I would otherwise have purchased from an authorised vendor, despite the fact that my total net worth has yet to surpass the nominal value of my music-collection thereby rendering this technically impossible. You then go on to assert that it is somehow fundamentally immoral to derive any form of enjoyment from commercial music which hasn't been paid for: again, patent bull****.

      However, since I happen to be an independent music-promoter – and one with a significant Youtube and Facebook presence – I hereby grace you with the perfect opportunity to put your money where your convictions are:

      Downtempo Music: 'Oblivion' by March Rosetta - Buy it here.


      Trip-Hop Music: 'Mr. Happy' by X:THC - Buy it here.


      Electro-Funk Music: 'Coastin'' by Tryezz - Buy it here.


      Nu-Jazz Music: 'As Sweet As Love' by Andy Compton - Buy it here.


      Electro-Funk Music: 'Give Some More' by Ruckazoid - Buy it here.


      Trip-Hop Music: 'Escape From Day' by Coto Normal - Buy it here.


      Downtempo Music: 'Disagreements' by StewRat - Buy it here.


      Neurofunk: 'The Phantom Menace' by Soul Cube - Buy it here.


      Nu-Soul Music: 'Joyride' by Giovanca & The Please - Buy it here.


      And remember: these are all unsigned artists, so every penny counts.

      Well? What the **** are you waiting for?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      See the edit to my previous post:

      Free downloading does either one of the following things:
      [1] It enables me to listen to music I would have otherwise not listened to.
      [2] It enables me to listen to music for free, that I would have otherwise paid for.

      You're talking about situation 2, where downloading the music for free means the artist is financially worse off than he would have otherwise been. I agree, this could be said to hurt the music industry. But I'm talking about situation 1. It makes no difference to the artist whether I download the music for free or not - he gets no money either way.


      I'm not robbing the artist of money he would have otherwise got. If I decided not to torrent the music, he would have still got no money from me.
      It isn't unreaonable to suggest that a significant portion of illegal downloads are situation [2]. So what's the point of your argument? Nearly all people who illegally download are still harming the music industry according to you. I just bite the bullet and admit I'm immoral.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Why is it that music fans who illegally download and file share music always come up with reasons to try to justify their theft of artists' music?

      Why do so called music fans kill the very thing they love? By downloading music without paying, you're killing what you claim to be so passionate about. That's hypocritical if you ask me.

      Here's the thoughts of a few other musicians on this subject:-

      Singer Doogie White told RockAAA: “We’re in danger of never hearing the next Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, AC/DC or Metallica. New bands struggle to get advances because record companies won’t take the risk.

      “All we’ll be left with is the X-Factor because so-called fans stole the very thing that gives the scene life – the music.

      “You get the trotted out lines: ‘If you made a decent album…’ ‘I can’t afford all the albums I want…’ ‘You guys have made enough money…’ It’s self-justification for theft: they steal music because they can.

      “Then they say, ‘But I always buy a t-shirt.’ Yeah, you do – because the merch guy would crack your head if you stole one.”

      Case study: Jamie Mallender

      I’m an independent artist based out of my website, JamieMallender.co.uk. I do everything from the writing, recording, playing all the instruments and singing to the releasing and publicity, all by myself.

      It’s hard work and I have absolutely no funding behind me at all. I know who buys my material and who doesn’t because I receive an e-mail confirming every individual download. But then I receive e-mails from people who claim to love my music. They’re full of compliments – but I know they didn’t buy it legally.

      Some are blatant about it, as though it doesn’t matter, while others are sly. Take my latest track, Slip Away. It’s 79p! How much is 79p to you, for God’s sake? If you like an artist, pay for the tracks you want. Support us or we’ll disapear. If music is so important to you, like most people claim it is, put your money where you mouth is – or I will not be able to afford to create it any more.

      Some people remain under the illusion that all artists are wealthy and so one more illegal download won’t matter. It’s not the case. It’s not the 80s any more. Many of us are scratching around to make enough money to feed our families.

      You wouldn’t expect a plumber to come and fix your bog for free, so why should my music be stolen and no one do anything about it? It’s theft.


      Source: http://www.rockaaa.com/news/8-millio...ers-in-uk-1571

      C'mon people....you wouldn't kill off footballers' livelihoods if you were a football fan by not paying to get into a football match or by stealing a football shirt. But people who claim to love music have no problems robbing the artists of part of their income by not paying for their music. The hypocrisy of so called 'music fans' is just unbelievable. You are killing it for the current generation of musicians, who are struggling like hell to make a living from their music.
      I think the Myspace industry is what's killed it to be honest. There are so many unsigned bands clamouring for attention that the labels are spoilt for choice. It allows many bands to invest more and more time and money in what they might once have given up as a bad job because they are "getting exposure" on the Internet. Whereas once we might not ever have heard of failed artists like this Jamie bloke, now they're all over the Internet for us to see.

      When I buy - even used to buy - albums, I bought them to go on the shelf - to show off the design of the cases, to show off the pedigree of my music taste, to show which bands were more special than the morass in my iTunes. Music is marketing. Nobody would shell out for the tracks of this Jamie bloke because, well, it's like homeless people. Once you give money to one you feel obliged to give it to them all - suddenly Jamie is special in your music collection, but what if you find another artist just like him? And there's so many small artists that you would find yourself playing them off, thinking, whose lyrics are better, whose musicianship is sharper? And that's no way to experience music.

      Small bands are better off doing gigs for local record shops. In my experience this seems to increase custom and exposure for both parties. As musical recordings become more disposable, so people should theoretically demand more unique experiences through gigs. The perceived uniqueness or specialness of an experience is proportional to its exclusivity. I don't understand why the modern consumerist machine doesn't understand this - even the consumers have a hard time understanding it. They've no idea why they're always depressed.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Hegemony)
      It isn't unreaonable to suggest that a significant portion of illegal downloads are situation [2]. So what's the point of your argument?
      The point of the argument is to say that downloading for free does not necessarily harm the music industry. In my case for example, every last one of my downloads falls into situation [1] and as such has no effect on the music industry.

      In any case, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "nearly all people" fall into situation [2]. It seems a bit of a bold suggestion to me.

      Nearly all people who illegally download are still harming the music industry according to you. I just bite the bullet and admit I'm immoral.
      I wouldn't really call it "immoral". That'd be like saying getting a lift to work every day is immoral because it saves me having to buy my own car, and therefore harms the car industry. Taking a book out of the library for free is immoral because it saves me from having to pay for my own copy of the book, and therefore harms the publishing industry.

      It's the job of the industry to devise a profitable method of distribution which is more attractive to consumers than all unprofitable alternatives.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I don't care if Metalica's lead singer wants to buy a new jet gulfstream or if his boss wants to take his family to a 6 star hotel in hawaii instead of a 5.
      THey are filthy rich exploiting young people into believing THAT is music.
      I'll happily keep on torrenting.
      PS: people used to record over the radio but not much of it was done you know why?
      albums sold for 99cents and not 25quids.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Example: J Cole. Hes only been recently signed and hasnt released a single under his label yet. He sells very few CDs yet he is signed to RocNation and makes around $50k a show.

      Stop talking.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      because denial is not just a river in Egypt.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by electriic_ink)
      Meh, the music industry has been ripping people off for years and still is. Example:

      Matt Cardle's new single (~15 mins of AUDIO) costs £4
      Scott Pilgrim vs the World (~110 mins of VIDEO + extras incl music videos) costs £20
      yap. i agree.. it cost too much
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      The point of the argument is to say that downloading for free does not necessarily harm the music industry. In my case for example, every last one of my downloads falls into situation [1] and as such has no effect on the music industry.

      In any case, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "nearly all people" fall into situation [2]. It seems a bit of a bold suggestion to me.
      I understood your point, I just don't see how illegal downloading not necessarily harming the music industry is much of a point in its favour when illegal downloading does harm the music industry (I can't of course quantify what proportion arise from situation [2], but as I said before it seems reasonable to suggest a significant amount do, perhaps not nearly all people). I also don't see how one can accurately discern whether or not they are situation [1] downloading or situation [2] downloading when there is (if you only believe situation [1] downloading to be permissible) an incentive to convince yourself that you wouldn't buy albums or singles that you have been situation [2] downloading.

      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      I wouldn't really call it "immoral". That'd be like saying getting a lift to work every day is immoral because it saves me having to buy my own car, and therefore harms the car industry. Taking a book out of the library for free is immoral because it saves me from having to pay for my own copy of the book, and therefore harms the publishing industry.

      It's the job of the industry to devise a profitable method of distribution which is more attractive to consumers than all unprofitable alternatives.
      Stealing is immoral (I assume you accept this, I don't but that doesn't matter if you do). None of those things were stealing or copy right infringement, you weren't owning someones car when you sat in it, you weren't owning the library book when you borrowed it, but you are taking ownership of the music files you download. Now, you could argue that intellectual property shouldn't exist but that's a different argument.

      I apologise if I'm being incoherent, I'm still slightly drunk and I haven't slept yet.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Exactly, why can't people accept that it is a crime, and that if they are caught there will be consequences.

      All these people who complained about the Digital Economies Bill, claiming it's an infringement on civil liberties... - oh sorry, I didn't realise it was your right to not be punished (very ****ing leniently in fact, considering there's a 3 strikes rule...) for committing a crime :rolleyes:


      I don't judge people for doing it, I myself may or may not download pirated material from time to time :ninja:

      But to complain that you'll be punished (leniently) after you're caught three times is just quite ****ing pathetic really...
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Sorry but me downloading that music may indeed result in me buying a ticket for their next tour AND a T Shirt.

      I think they get profit from me in the end.

      I'm not buying a CD just in case I hate it, however I am buying 3 new albums today because I love the bands and I can't be bothered to bring my laptop to work to d/l it.

      EDIT: My Engrish sucks.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I always wanted to be a pirate and being as i am not Somalian nor do i have an eye patch this is the closest i could get
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Not music, but still very relevant. Proof that illegal downloading of digital media does not automatically mean a loss of sales: http://torrentfreak.com/call-of-duty...f-2010-101228/
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      im pretty sure there was a BBC Panaroma on this matter a while back and they said the people who download illegally still spend more money on music (concerts/albums) than people who buy legally.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    TSR wiki music section

    Quick link:

    Unanswered music threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.