What do guys think about this? Is it stealing?

Some people say yes and others say no. I personally think it is stealing because you're aquiring something for free without the permission of the person who created it. The filesharing sites are making big bucks through advertising by essentially doing nothing as the people who join the sites do all the work by uploading the music, and when I say work I mean uploading a file which takes less than 3 minutes... that simply isn't right to me.

Music is a very difficult thing to create for most people, they work very hard practicing their instruments and singing, writing, re-writing and tweaking songs, spending a lot of money on instruments and studio-time etc. and they deserve to get paid for it. Musicians on here will know how difficult it can be to come up with a completed recording of a 3-minute song and the process from the initial idea to the finished recording can take a suprising amount of time, sometimes many weeks or even months depending on the person. Sure Prince goes into the studio, lays down the tracks and has a finished recording in less than a day but for most people its not so easy!

What do you think should be done regarding illegal downloading? Should file-sharing sites be shut down? Would it be that hard to do? I'm confused as to why it hasn't happened yet because everyone knows it is illegal. Millions, maybe even billions of dollars have been lost through illegal downloading of music, movies etc. so why has nothing been done? Only recently has youtube begun to pay money to the record companies for use of the content. HMV have had to close many stores due to loss of revenue which is mainly due to illegal downloading. Everybody I know downloads music for free and doesn't buy CD's except 1 or 2 people, I know 2 people who buy off i-tunes but the rest download for free illegally. The people who don't download illegally actually don't know how to do it, and i bet if they did, they would.

The key word here is illegal, most illegal things are taken very seriously, especially when it comes to making lots of money and yet illegal downloading is not being taken as seriously as it should be I think.

What do you reckon?

As long as these sites are up, people will use them.

I'm all for it.

It's perfectly possible still to make a reasonable living by being a musician if you have a good product to offer for your audience and also play live. That really hasn't changed. What it has shattered is this notion of mainstream pop artists and execs having the right to become filthy rich by putting a few 3-4 minute songs out there. It's almost as if they were expecting to get automatically paid if they just do it. Just make some music, market it aggressively and people will pay money for it. Why would you be surprised when that doesn't work anymore after changes in technology and in the overall cultural climate?

I'm not saddened by someone like Mariah Carey not being able to buy another mansion for herself.

Something being "legal" or "illegal" isn't always the best way to view these things either, because what was "legal" just a few years ago might be "illegal" only a few years later and vice versa. Downloading music isn't even considered illegal in many parts of the world at the moment. For that matter, whether or not downloading is "stealing" is just semantics that is used for rhetoric. Everyone knows it's not really about "stealing", because it's about making copies and distributing them to others. "Stealing" doesn't simply mean "getting nice things for yourself and not having to pay for them", although that seems to be what's really behind the rhetoric. Don't forget that copying music on tapes was perfectly legal most everywhere for decades and the same goes for CD-Rs. The only reason filesharing can be considered illegal is that the terms used in legislation weren't applicable to the new digital formats and what happens when you are transferring data over a network. What causes problems to the recording industry is just how easy it is to attain digital copies of records these days. People have been able to make copies of records on tapes (and CD-Rs) and allowing others to make copies of those for ages. Now all of a sudden the same thing that happened with tapes gets called "stealing". It's really odd that when making copies of records and passing them to others simply got easier it gets called "stealing".

I'm only saddened by what has happened to record stores. I think they were an essential part of many urban areas.

[Edited 1/9/11 6:42am]

On the one hand I agree that it is wrong and it is stealing but on the other hand the major labels have been ripping off customers and artists since the very beginning. I take the view that they are reaping that which they have sown. It doesn't help any that many of the legal options for downloading music are of inferior quality to the illegal options.

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

Taping off the radio while you wait to catch a song in between advertising isn't the same as requesting a lossless copy of an entire album for free.

In the days of home taping, you actually had to know the person who had a copy of an album, so that networking is not comparable. Neither was the sound.

TheScouser said:

Music is a very difficult thing to create for most people, they work very hard practicing their instruments and singing, writing, re-writing and tweaking songs, spending a lot of money on instruments and studio-time etc. and they deserve to get paid for it. Musicians on here will know how difficult it can be to come up with a completed recording of a 3-minute song and the process from the initial idea to the finished recording can take a suprising amount of time, sometimes many weeks or even months depending on the person. Sure Prince goes into the studio, lays down the tracks and has a finished recording in less than a day but for most people its not so easy!

I'm for paying for digital music. I know walking to the store and flitting through racks of CDs isn't most people's idea(l) of finding music anymore, so stories about brick-and-mortar stores closing are no surprise to me - BUT listeners can still support the artists from the comfort of their homes by downloading through proper channels. If your ass don't have a credit card, then I guess you might have to walk your ass to the store. Stealing shouldn't be an option. The file sharing sites are up because people have to share files that belong to them.

[Edited 1/9/11 7:24am]

Cinnie said:

BklynBabe said:

I'm just wondering if you considered it stealing to record music off the radio back in the days of cassettes.... Or if you considered it stealing to borrow your friend's cd and rip it or record it to cassette...

Taping off the radio while you wait to catch a song in between advertising isn't the same as requesting a lossless copy of an entire album for free.

In the days of home taping, you actually had to know the person who had a copy of an album, so that networking is not comparable. Neither was the sound.

yeah its totally different, and people also feel that because its up on the net its free and public use, which its not. Home taping took alot of work, which is why digital is all over the place and its exploding, i mean the internet was around alot earlier than the rise of downloading illegally, that didnt become an issue till early 2000's the net was already up and running, but once digital became the way and cds were vanishing, u can put up a file in minutes and its multiplying. So it wont change till enough fear is put into people like jailing a person that runs a website or something like that, that happening might shake people up and if you do it constantly it will deter it, never stop it, but trust me enough pressure will force things to happen.

I still like to record vinyl to my computer to make little "mixtapes" which is not that much different, as you have to wait for the song to play out.

But when the files are ready, burning off an extra copy for friends or sending a link is much easier than sitting 80 minutes while it dubs (while quality degrades).

novabrkr said:

I'm all for it.

It's perfectly possible still to make a reasonable living by being a musician if you have a good product to offer for your audience and also play live. That really hasn't changed. What it has shattered is this notion of mainstream pop artists and execs having the right to become filthy rich by putting a few 3-4 minute songs out there. It's almost as if they were expecting to get automatically paid if they just do it. Just make some music, market it aggressively and people will pay money for it. Why would you be surprised when that doesn't work anymore after changes in technology and in the overall cultural climate?

I'm not saddened by someone like Mariah Carey not being able to buy another mansion for herself.

Something being "legal" or "illegal" isn't always the best way to view these things either, because what was "legal" just a few years ago might be "illegal" only a few years later and vice versa. Downloading music isn't even considered illegal in many parts of the world at the moment. For that matter, whether or not downloading is "stealing" is just semantics that is used for rhetoric. Everyone knows it's not really about "stealing", because it's about making copies and distributing them to others. "Stealing" doesn't simply mean "getting nice things for yourself and not having to pay for them", although that seems to be what's really behind the rhetoric. Don't forget that copying music on tapes was perfectly legal most everywhere for decades and the same goes for CD-Rs. The only reason filesharing can be considered illegal is that the terms used in legislation weren't applicable to the new digital formats and what happens when you are transferring data over a network. What causes problems to the recording industry is just how easy it is to attain digital copies of records these days. People have been able to make copies of records on tapes (and CD-Rs) and allowing others to make copies of those for ages. Now all of a sudden the same thing that happened with tapes gets called "stealing". It's really odd that when making copies of records and passing them to others simply got easier it gets called "stealing".

I'm only saddened by what has happened to record stores. I think they were an essential part of many urban areas.

[Edited 1/9/11 6:42am]

yeah but how many Mariah Carey's are there? we think that these artists got rich on music when they didnt, i think the so called rich artist, is about less than 1 percent of people that make music, and its really always been that way. The Beyonce's of the world get hteir cash other places, those who hang on with only music to sell, are far far from rich, i think we would be surprised at what they make.

As for the record stores, i blame the public for this, they caused it, along with labels that refused to lower cd prices for record stores to buy them, this allowed shit stores like Best Buy to take over, and of course everyone knows that best buy loses about 2-3 dollars on a 9.99 cd, which is why you are seeing a rise in their prices all of a sudden, and also Best Buy cutting their music stock buy 80% in the last few years.

Best Buy sells CDs because it hopes to make up that extra $3 when you buy a car stereo or iPod from them.

Cinnie said:

Best Buy sells CDs because it hopes to make up that extra $3 when you buy a car stereo or iPod from them.

Exactly. CDs are a loss leader for them.

Cinnie said:

Best Buy sells CDs because it hopes to make up that extra $3 when you buy a car stereo or iPod from them.

exactly, they are making their "margin" on almost everything else they sell, with the exception of Laptops which pretty much are sold around what they cost, with Video Games, ironically they are not allowed nor is any other retailer allowed to sell cheaper than the other, the game companies set the prices, maybe thats what labels should have done, imagine if Best Buy wasnt allowed to sell anything 9.99, which is a huge loss to a store like Tower or Goody that only sells cds, you probably would still have a few other retailers standing

Well, I think I made it clear myself that there aren't or never were that many Mariah Carey type of artists out there.

The sales didn't really start to suffer until Youtube and other streaming services like Spotify became popular. That's when the sales took a nosedive. P2P programs certainly aren't used by that many people anymore. I've been using slsk for about eight years and it seems to be there's only 30% of the users left. Even if the rarer material doesn't end up on streaming services a lot of the material ends up now on torrents and blogs instead. Whereas it would be easier to control the blogs and shutting them down, with torrents it would be really hard to do anything about it at this stage.

I think the big question for the mainstream music industry really is what they are going to do to youtube? They're playing along with it now, but that seems to be just damage control. When you can instantly get the song you want together with the video - most people don't seem to be that concerned about the audio / video quality - there's not even a need to have the file on your own hard drive. I don't know how listening to a track through a streaming service is supposed to be somehow a different thing in practical terms than accessing a file from your hard drive. We could try to speculate about the "ownership of the medium the file is saved on", but everyone knows it's irrelevant in practical terms.

[edit - engrish check]

[Edited 1/9/11 9:53am]

That's the difference when you can request any media you want and instantly enjoy it without even saving it. I know I listen to a lot of music on Youtube and never been billed a cent. VEVO is getting closer with making you watch an advertisement every now and then.

The ironic thing is music videos are promotional by nature, which is why Youtube seems to be getting a pass.

novabrkr said:

Well, I think I made it clear myself that there aren't or never were that many Mariah Carey type of artists out there.

The sales didn't really start to suffer until Youtube and other streaming services like Spotify became popular. That's when the sales took a nosedive. P2P programs certainly aren't used by that many people anymore. I've been using slsk for about eight years and it seems to be there's only 30% of the users left. Even if the rarer material doesn't end up on streaming services a lot of the material ends up now on torrents and blogs instead. Whereas it would be easier to control the blogs and shutting them down, with torrents it would be really hard to do anything about it at this stage.

I think the big question for the mainstream music industry really is what they are going to do to youtube? They're playing along with it now, but that seems to be just damage control. When you can instantly get the song you want together with the video - most people don't seem to be that concerned about the audio / video quality - there's not even a need to have the file on your own hard drive. I don't know how listening to a track through a streaming service is supposed to be somehow a different thing in practical terms than accessing a file from your hard drive. We could try to speculate about the "ownership of the medium the file is saved on", but everyone knows it's irrelevant in practical terms.

[edit - engrish check]

[Edited 1/9/11 9:53am]

Actually, Mariah Carey is sort a flawed example here.

I can understand how some may perceive Mariah's music to be of little value, but that's your preference. The fact is, Mariah is a songwriter as well as singer/diva, so she makes as much money off her songs being played on the radio, music videos, and in public places via her association with ASCAP and BMI, so even if she never sold another CD in her life, she will still get paid from her publishing.

A better example would be Britney Spears and most of the pop tart artists who don't write their own music. The record companies have been exploiting their personas and sexuality for years, putting out crappy pop songs and rushing out substandard CD's to a teen audience which doesn't know better. Easy downloading probably affects their bottom lines further than it would for Mariah Carey because these artists are mainly studio creations and don't do the live performances or songwriting that would supplement their income. That's why these artists have to put out clothing and fragrance lines to get rich.

That's not why I mentioned Mariah Carey. She was just an arbitrary example of a wealthy pop music artist. I literally meant what I wrote. I'm not saddened by the successful artists making as much money off their music as they once did. That is regardless of their talent, because I could say the same thing about Prince. Pop music has been overvalued for too long and that needed to change. Some artists got really rich in the process, while others made very little. The internet has balanced out that disparity already.

Someone might argue that a lot of that money always came from merchandise and concert ticket sales and the record companies were the only ones benefiting from record sales, but that's irrelevant. There was still too big a gap between the successful ones and the non-successful ones.

I don't see a reason why the pop music industry shouldn't become more like the TV industry. Why not just start paying the artists on a monthly basis? Many of them are just performers for the material others have made for them. They're comparable to actors. Why all the pretension that they are some sort of creative artists responsible for their art? Just hire the ones that they think are capable of doing the job, i.e. attracting an audience.

novabrkr you're making me cringe here, but at least you're thinking of alternate options based on industries that aren't crashing

novabrkr said:

That's not why I mentioned Mariah Carey. She was just an arbitrary example of a wealthy pop music artist. I literally meant what I wrote. I'm not saddened by the successful artists making as much money off their music as they once did. That is regardless of their talent, because I could say the same thing about Prince. Pop music has been overvalued for too long and that needed to change. Some artists got really rich in the process, while others made very little. The internet has balanced out that disparity already.

Someone might argue that a lot of that money always came from merchandise and concert ticket sales and the record companies were the only ones benefiting from record sales, but that's irrelevant. There was still too big a gap between the successful ones and the non-successful ones.

I don't see a reason why the pop music industry shouldn't become more like the TV industry. Why not just start paying the artists on a monthly basis? Many of them are just performers for the material others have made for them. They're comparable to actors. Why all the pretension that they are some sort of creative artists responsible for their art? Just hire the ones that they think are capable of doing the job, i.e. attracting an audience.

i dont think u will see the music industry practice how the tv industry does. Mainly because someone can be fired from a tv show for doing something wrong, like a DUI or a barfight,etc.....If that was put into practice in the music industry, you would have about 4 people left in it, and it would turn into a whole bunch of legal messes, if you think Charlie Sheen has scandals, imagine what a label would have to do with TI and his issues. It would never happen.

I think the labels however, are doing what you said in the respect of hiring who think will attract an audience rather than someone that has musical talent and has to be grown and might not make money right away. I mean SNOOKI is getting a recording deal, so i think labels already are thinking other ways

The thing is though the artists that are complaining about losing sales actually are no where near "rich" or "wealthy" or even comfortable to some extent. I mean i dont hear REM or Pearl Jam saying "our last cd didnt sell because of downloading" they really dont care because they are paid already, its the smaller bands that dont HAVE IT like that, that are complaining. And lets be truthful here, if you are a struggling musician barely selling you arent making 50K a year or even close to that, and now take out your expenses of living and rent, why would you not bitch about people stealing your shit?

[Edited 1/9/11 11:22am]

lastdecember said:

The thing is though the artists that are complaining about losing sales actually are no where near "rich" or "wealthy" or even comfortable to some extent. I mean i dont hear REM or Pearl Jam saying "our last cd didnt sell because of downloading" they really dont care because they are paid already, its the smaller bands that dont HAVE IT like that, that are complaining.

I didn't make any arguments about what type of artists are complaining about downloading.

Although it's possible that our definitions of "smaller bands" differ, because I don't see too many people operating outside the mainstream music market place complaining about it. Just don't have unrealistic expectations of what you are going to make from sales and that will have it covered. I'd like to think that if I just make a record it will be guaranteed to pay my bills for several months, but there's no problem if I don't dupe myself into believing that in the first place. If you already know you are most likely going to have problems supporting yourself from the money you are going to make from your sales then don't count on it to support you.

Again, I meant my original comment literally. I'm not saddened by the rich artists making less money from their record sales as before. People have diverted their attention elsewhere and there are more underground and small-scale bands and labels out there than ever. How is it possible that a band like Sunn O))) is successful enough to sell out venues around the world? Because more people have gotten introduced to different types of music thanks to the internet. There are of course also more people making no money at all from their records now than ever, but so what.

Should it be an issue if the music is out of print?

If I can't purchase the album in a store, what is wrong with downloading it for free?

Why isn't selling used albums illegal?

minneapolisFunq said:

Should it be an issue if the music is out of print?

If I can't purchase the album in a store, what is wrong with downloading it for free?

Why isn't selling used albums illegal?

So you're saying you know about used music stores but will download something if it is out of print.

rialb said:

On the one hand I agree that it is wrong and it is stealing but on the other hand the major labels have been ripping off customers and artists since the very beginning. I take the view that they are reaping that which they have sown. It doesn't help any that many of the legal options for downloading music are of inferior quality to the illegal options.

I said this same s*** the last thread about Illegal downloading....

and i agree... i don't care if record labels are losing money. They take advantage of all their artist and consumers. Maybe if the major labels had real talent and better quality music, people would want to support the artist.

They dont have to worry about me stealing, because im not interested in anything thats out. And the artist that im interested in I will buy the album/CD

Org debate aside, the LEGAL community is gonna decide a big chunk of this issue (at least in stark legal precedent) this spring with the Limewire case.

JamFanHot said:

Org debate aside, the LEGAL community is gonna decide a big chunk of this issue (at least in stark legal precedent) this spring with the Limewire case.

True. They just need a ruling of precedence that will stick on all future lawsuits.

novabrkr said:

lastdecember said:

The thing is though the artists that are complaining about losing sales actually are no where near "rich" or "wealthy" or even comfortable to some extent. I mean i dont hear REM or Pearl Jam saying "our last cd didnt sell because of downloading" they really dont care because they are paid already, its the smaller bands that dont HAVE IT like that, that are complaining.

I didn't make any arguments about what type of artists are complaining about downloading.

Although it's possible that our definitions of "smaller bands" differ, because I don't see too many people operating outside the mainstream music market place complaining about it. Just don't have unrealistic expectations of what you are going to make from sales and that will have it covered. I'd like to think that if I just make a record it will be guaranteed to pay my bills for several months, but there's no problem if I don't dupe myself into believing that in the first place. If you already know you are most likely going to have problems supporting yourself from the money you are going to make from your sales then don't count on it to support you.

Again, I meant my original comment literally. I'm not saddened by the rich artists making less money from their record sales as before. People have diverted their attention elsewhere and there are more underground and small-scale bands and labels out there than ever. How is it possible that a band like Sunn O))) is successful enough to sell out venues around the world? Because more people have gotten introduced to different types of music thanks to the internet. There are of course also more people making no money at all from their records now than ever, but so what.

there are so many levels of "wealth" for music artists out there though, you have a Paul McCartney who rightly so will never care about a bill in his life again, but he put in the work, people made millions off him so why shouldnt he reap it too? Thats a thing that people forget, labels still make millions while their artists file for bankruptcy after one album. Now the other levels of wealth that we think would be say Kanye or Rihanna or Jayz who clearly make their cash elsewhere, as Puffy said, if i was in this business for music i'd be broke.

Its not a likely thing that if you are a band with no backing and no money of your own that you are going to survive, you have to have something somewhere to boost you up, whether its a label, a rich friend, a hook up, whatever, but to make any kind of money something has to be there to start with. Now sure you will have a fluke now and then, but usually when that happens, its a lucky shot of someone posting a youtube video like a "whip my hair" type BS, that is already a non issue. now if you want to have a career, its alot tougher, making a record may be cheap, but its not as cheap as you think it may be, so you have to have the thought in your mind "your going to lose money" if you realize that going in and can weather it, than it at some point MIGHT work. I tell that to every actor/actress that i meet here in NYC when im doing my theatre work, i tell them if you are in this "to make it" then fucking quit now, because 99% of people lose money and have to keep the day job and do odds and ends. I know that those are two different industries but its really all related.

Cinnie said:

JamFanHot said:

Org debate aside, the LEGAL community is gonna decide a big chunk of this issue (at least in stark legal precedent) this spring with the Limewire case.

True. They just need a ruling of precedence that will stick on all future lawsuits.

Like i said before if something BIG happens like say SONY or UNIVERSAL taking out a lawsuit against say GOOGLE because these download sites are all in Google's search engines, shit will fall QUICK. Trust me, money talks, and if Google gets hit with losses that labels have taken, this thread would be irrelevant. And i can tell you that this is already being discussed.

Cause it works like this, Now im an indie filmmaker/theatre writer producer do my own shows etc...i have things up on the net and work with actors that they have put up for their own benefit, now if i find any of my clips being downloaded, why wouldnt i want to take action? Now multiply that if the whole motion picture and recording industry hit google in the ass with a multi billion zillion dollar lawsuit?

[Edited 1/9/11 14:17pm]

People are just getting smarter and paying what the music these days is actually worth....nothing.

in the 60s and 70s it was "You Can't Stop Rock and Roll"

now it's just "You Can't Stop p2p" lol

I think that programs/services like Vevo or Spotify are really healthy and useful: they allow people to hear if a new album (or even a "classic" album that could be overrated) is worth buying or not. People are not only tired of expensive Cds (17-22 $), people are also tired of crappy albums.

90% of the people I know buy the physical copy of the album if it's good enough...

minneapolisFunq said:

Should it be an issue if the music is out of print?

If I can't purchase the album in a store, what is wrong with downloading it for free?

Why isn't selling used albums illegal?

Exactly. If you can't buy, you gotta do the next best thing because you have no choice. A download to me feels like a "copy" so I still don't feel like I actually own the song unless I have it on the original vinyl. Even when I purchase a CD, I still feel like I have a "copy" because you can record a CD yourself. There's nothing like having the vinyl but if you have no choice, you gotta do what you gotta do.