Is it wrong to download music from Ares/Kazaa/Limewire, etc?

The title says it all really - I was having a discussion with my friend about downloading music from such sites, i.e. illegally. I thought it was wrong full stop, whereas she thought that although it is illegal, the high prices of singles and albums means that it's not necessarily wrong.

So, what do you think - is it wrong? Is it unfair on the artists and bands who make the music, or is it an understandabe part of a world, in particular a country, which tends to suffer higher prices than most and thus isn't wrong?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

sherunsaway

It's probably morally wrong......but with the expansion of the internet into something that is taking over our lives, I think it is too prevalent to be stopped no matter how illegal people make it.

It's just so easy to download lots of music quickly without having to browse around, and in some ways it's beneficial to artists because the music is spread to a larger audience.

If I like an album that I steal off the internet, I'll buy the cd.

Reply 2

Invocation

i dont see how it is wrong at all. sure it costs the artist but arnt they rich enough? the only difference it makes to them is they cant afford that new fur coat or bathe in evian water 7 times a week.

i agree with what chuck d from public enemy said, that downloading will do more good for the artist in the longterm.

Reply 3

TKR

it's not really at all morally defensible i'm afraid

not that that stops me from doing it

Reply 4

SolInvictus

Stealing msuic is wrong, but so is charging an arm and a leg to buy music these days.

Reply 5

_jackofdiamonds

Morally wrong? I don't reckon so. If someone lends you a CD and you listen to that CD without paying anything to the artist are you immoral?

Reply 6

SolInvictus

_jackofdiamonds

Morally wrong? I don't reckon so. If someone lends you a CD and you listen to that CD without paying anything to the artist are you immoral?

Please elaborate, as I see no comparison between borrowing a CD and violating a copyright by stealing intellectual property.

Reply 7

_jackofdiamonds

SolInvictus

Please elaborate, as I see no comparison between borrowing a CD and violating a copyright by stealing intellectual property.

That's because copyright violation is a legal wrong. But this is about moral rights and wrongs. Personally I don't see how someone who borrows a CD for a week and listens to the music is any different to someone who downloads the same and listens to the music and deletes it after a week.

Reply 8

cappucino07

In a word, no.

Real musicians would want their music to reach the widest audience possible, and in the long term the artist will benefit (gig tickets, future album sales etc).

Reply 9

Pseudomuse

we are able to borrow books from a library for personal use, with out infringing copyrught laws. is this different from down loading music illegaly for personal use?

Reply 10

SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian

Phoenix Dioxide

we are able to borrow books from a library for personal use, with out infringing copyrught laws. is this different from down loading music illegaly for personal use?

The authors get royalties, and more importantly they give permission - you could say that if an artist wanted to put their music on the internet, they could put it on their own site/myspace, and if they haven't, you can assume they don't want you to listen to it without buying it - and it's their creation, they have every right to a monopoly over its use.

Having said that, I treat them like games. I've bought too many ****ty albums on the strength of one decent radio song, each at about £14 a piece. I'll download it, and then if I like it, i'll buy it. Indeed, I have a few albums and games still in their celephane where i've never opened them. I want to pay for the music that is the best, not the musician whose marketing department is best at tricking you into buying it.

Reply 11

Ozymandias

It's also worth pointing out that the copyright holder only suffers financial loss if you download music you would otherwise have bought. If not, you haven't taken anything physical (like a CD) that could have been sold. Which makes me wonder if, in the event of being prosecuted for downloading, you could argue that the record company have to prove you would have bought the music if you hadn't downloaded it.

Reply 12

_jackofdiamonds

The difference with books is that if you open up and look inside a book it will say Copyright "authors name" whereas if you open up a CD it will say Copyright "Record Company's name". The artist doesn't have a right over their own product.

Reply 13

by-torslayshisfoe

_jackofdiamonds

They're not claiming it as their own property without purchasing it.

So, what do you think - is it wrong? Is it unfair on the artists and bands who make the music, or is it an understandabe part of a world, in particular a country, which tends to suffer higher prices than most and thus isn't wrong?

Limewire is a legit site. It also depends whether intellectual property should exist.

Reply 14

HighlyEvolved

SolInvictus

Please elaborate, as I see no comparison between borrowing a CD and violating a copyright by stealing intellectual property.

It is a breach of copyright to lend someone a CD/DVD/book (therefore it is illegal) but everyone does it. so technically it is just as immoral to borrow a CD off someone for a few days.

Reply 15

Bismarck

~nat~

If I'm renting our a room in my house, and am asking for $2000 a month in rent, while you believe the rent should only be $500, does that give you a right to take my room without my permission and pay me nothing?

Reply 16

SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian

Bismarck

But if you didn't have $2k so you could never afford it, and you have (literally) infinate rooms, it makes it different, non?

Reply 17

Alasdair

SolInvictus

Stealing msuic is wrong, but so is charging an arm and a leg to buy music these days.

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. It annoys me when people try to muddy this debate with an emotive misnomer.

Reply 18

Bismarck

DanGrover

But if you didn't have $2k so you could never afford it, and you have (literally) infinate rooms, it makes it different, non?

If enough people decide to do this, you don't think my revenue would go down? Presumably even some people who would be willing to pay the $2k would no longer do so since they see so many people not paying a penny.

alasdair_R

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. It annoys me when people try to muddy this debate with an emotive misnomer.

You're using their intellectual property without their permission, which means you're stealing. Stealing an idea is no better than stealing concrete property.

Reply 19

Alasdair

Bismarck

You're using their intellectual property without their permission, which means you're stealing. Stealing an idea is no better than stealing concrete property.

Is it, my arse!

The whole reason stealing property is stealing is because there is a finite amount of property. If I have two pounds and you take one, then I only have one pound left. If you were to write down a copy of something I have written on a piece of paper, I'd still have exactly the same piece of paper and exactly the same ideas left.

Hypothetically reducing somebody's value or income isn't the same as stealing - that would be like saying that somebody building a parking lot next to my house is stealing from me because they are hyothetically reducing the value of my house.