The ethics of downloading music

ferdi

Are Kaaza and the like destoying music?

a)think about it...why do people make music?

1) for the sheer joy and love of it
2) to make money
if we dont pay for music....

b)why do bands play gigs?

to promote albums.

if we dont buy albums, will it end gigs?

basicly i have decided not to download music anymore as i believe that in the long run its a good thing, are you with me?

Lemming

You're overlooking a few points.

First, and in rebuke of the RIAA's public figures about cd-burning and p2p file-sharing causing a slump in sales, I give you the following:

the industry scaled down it's production two years ago and is now feeling the bite of that decision. It's simple. Less cd's are being made and since the excess stock has been depleted, sales volumes have dropped. The industry just has a convenient scape-goat to a) up prices and b) domineer political office to allow them monopolise the industry further.

Secondly, the industry is destroying itself through the sheer volume of absolute dross it has been releasing for the last number of years.

Thirdly, bands/artists see a tiny percent of that 20 odd euro you hand over for that CD. Where does the rest of it go I wonder? :rolleyes:

Forth, the industry is afraid of what it can't control and is attempting to do with the internet what it tried to do with tapes when they came out.

Fifth, back-catalogues of many artists aren't made available because the industry people have no interest in peddling anything other than the same dross crap they're currently producing, thus sharing actually promotes demand for artist/group abc's material.

Sixth, at 20-odd euro a pop for an album, that's a rather expensive gamble to see if you like it.

If I like an album, I'll go out and buy it cause I want all the artwork, sleeves, etc, etc. The ability to download it allows me sample and see. Similarly for artists I know little work of, but have had recommended me by friends.

"Destroying music" my f*cking a*se. From a musician's point of view, I'm telling you now that the very people destroying the industry are the same people controlling it currently. All of these new bands are trained performing monkeys, and if I were a professional musician I would be insulted to have these people considered my peers.

Wook

agreed , your arse !

artists complaining because they can't make enough money ?!
(see 'MTV Cribs')
And yes, only a little goes to the band/artist some to tax and everything else ?
If they would set the price of a new cd to a reasonable level more people would be seduced to buy CD's (see Jazz cd prices).

It's all greed , and to hit them back is just to nice to miss.

Benbaz

The industry is being destroyed by people downloading music off the net? I DON’T THINK SO!!!

Tommy Tiernan said it best in his DVD last Christmas. He made the excellent point, “How did the industry ever make it through the whole taping songs off the radio crisis in the eighties???”

The only crisis if there is a crisis is the fact that the big record companies insist on investing ridiculous amounts of money on short-term flash in the pan bands. These bands are created with the sole purpose of getting their debut album and then maybe 3 singles from that album to no.1 in the album and single charts respectively. Artist development is becoming virtually non-existent. You only have to look at how bands were allowed to develop years ago by being signed for up to ten albums enabling them to develop as accomplished artists. Nowadays if the sales of your second album don’t match the sales of your first album you’re dropped from the label!! A good example of this is Toploader.

Also, you only have to look at how much the record company executives are making off the back of these artists. The big hairy ape that is Simon Cowell is a perfect example of this. Mr. Cowell creamed a staggering Stg.£50million from the extremely trite S-Club 7, while the band members made only something like half a million each. Now don’t get my wrong, I don’t really care how much money the stage school gimps that are the individual members of S-Club 7 make, I’m just using it as an example of where the interests of the execs lie.

I have no problems about downloading loading songs off the net, although my connection is so slow that it would cheaper to buy the CD in the first place!!! But having said that, I’m a bit of a trainspotter so I tend to buy originals anyway and over the years I dread to think how much I’ve spent on music!!! And how are we the music buying public rewarded for supporting artists by buying their material??? By having to fork out anything from €50 - €110 for concert tickets to see them live when they do tour!!! Industry not making enough money?………BOO-F*CKING-HOO!!!!!!!

Kali

“How did the industry ever make it through the whole taping songs off the radio crisis in the eighties???”

The answer would be CDs and the huge improvement in sound they offered.

However the problem this time around lies in the fact that decent quality mp3s (160kbps+) are for the majority indistinguishable from CDs, plus the increase in ownership of CD writers and the mass copying of CDs, which by the end of next year should have reached the heights of tape copying in the 80s.

I didn't vote in the poll because theres no option there that expresses my opinion.. being that low quality music should be available on the internet to increase the musicians worldwide availablilty and coverage/exposure, if people like what they hear they will usually buy the CD.

Bands like S-Club 7 don't really belong in a debate like this, but on that point I believe the public have been oversaturated with artificial and quick manufactured bands... every fad blows over eventually. Just sit back and wait for the new one to hit the pre-teen market.

Theres plenty of good music out there if you know where to look. Avoid HMV & MTV and wander into a proper record shop and take a chance on something new.. stuff theres not a chance in hell you'll find on kazaa, chances are it'll be worthwhile.

Lemming

Kali, I saw a figure of sales affected so far by downloading of songs for free (I can't find the quote - but was somewher eon wired.com or the like) which was in the ball-park of less than 1%.

Yet the RIAA claims the figure to be far higher, whilst keeping schmum about the fact that their own represented clients cut back their production which has provided far more of a hit to sales.

The whole "digital distribution" debacle is nothing more than a front. The industry stuck it's head in the sand regarding digital music distribution and pretended it didn't exist. Now they're having problems controlling a medium they don't understand and have no monopolistic control over and are using twisted facts and figures to make governments do their work for them.

On note of the "image" bands, this fad has been going on strong for close on 10 years now. The inclusion of such bands is HIGHLY relevant in this debate, when placed alongside bands who had talent who got binned because they couldn't churn out generic-pop #1 hits no matter how consistent their quality of songs may have been.

Benbaz

Originally posted by Kali
Bands like S-Club 7 don't really belong in a debate like this

It's bands like these that are ruining good music for true music fans by soaking up the money that should be going to new inspired musicians. But again I don't blame the band members of these silly little bands it's the bigwigs behind them that are ruining it for everyone!!!

“How did the industry ever make it through the whole taping songs off the radio crisis in the eighties???”

The answer would be CDs and the huge improvement in sound they offered.

That was mean't as a joke, after all I was quoting a comedian.

But the point I was making was as already said by Lemming was "The industry just has a convenient scape-goat to a) up prices and b) domineer political office to allow them monopolise the industry further"

I really don't think it's people downloading music off the net that's the problem, it's more like GREED being the problem!!!!

Clintons Cat

I dont know really,obviously when i download music its harming nobody,Its Everybody Else Thats The Problem.Personally i have bought very few albumns this year,mainly because there doesnt seem to be much new music out there thats actually worth buying.In fact only two spring to mind that i have bought and listened to more than for a week (Roots>Phrenology and ColdPlay>A Rush Of Blood To the Head,Though i am meaning to buy a copy of Massive Attack>100th Window soon.

My veiw is i support the artists i like.Its a bit like trying to explain why i would pay to go to a football match when i could watch it for free on the telly in the comfort of my own home.

Think of all that money EMI pished away on Robbie Williams who still hasnt broken the American market after 4+ albumns and think how many smaller bands they could have groomed with that money.Plus all the money being wasted hyping pre teen cover bands with a shelf life only slightly longer than the average may fly.
Invest in talent and people that can actually write and express themselves through music.

ferdi

ok guys, in your mighty wisdom and glory, you have set the record stright.

i would ask a mod to delete this thread as it appears to have no merit.

wook, dont call me names because you dont agree with me, its not clever.

The Gopher

Of a few score files I have downloaded on kazaa I later went and bought the albums for most of them.
Is there anything really wrong with downloading tracks from underground rap mixtapes,dance mixes(though im not into dance much) etc seeing as you cant get that stuff easily in Ireland?And what about albums which are no longer being produced?
Some of this stuff would never leave the city it was recorded in were it not for the internet.There is some music like this which is very difficult to buy legally on this side of the atlantic.

Anyway,downloading 2 or 3 tracks lets you get a taste of the album quality.Some rap artists have become even more famous thanks to bootlegging in their early days.

I definitely see prices of CDs coming down lately thanks to the net filesharing-but tbf the prices in the likes of HMV were until recently ridicilous in general.I saw a Scooter CD in there which was out around 6 years for something like 35 euro recently(I paid a fiver for it in Norn Iron,which is lucky as it isnt even a great CD).

But if you want cheaper CDs in general you should try the independant shops first before you try the likes of HMV.Chain stores,at least until recently,would still charge full price on CDs which were out for years whereas smaller places are more likely to have them below the 10 euro mark.

And anyway,when you think about it is extremely hard to download an entire album online.Kazaa has barely none and there is a ring of websites which keep leading you to the next one and the next one until you realise there is no album and it is merely ****ing up your favourites list with a load of inserted gambling and business websites.And the pop ups are a killer.

weemcd

how much does it actually cost to produce the cd's? blank disks are so cheap and companies can get them sooooo much cheaper than us. Also what have record labels don for us the muscic is wat matters, they've been ripping people off for ages and we get "free" ( what abour phone bills?) music for a while and they're vivtims!!! f*ck them pack of rich fat cat b@stards

tman

i have no problems with downloading popular music (ie anything that's reached the top 100 albums/singles chart)
i prefer to buy rarer cd's/vinyl

Pigman II

Originally posted by ferdi
b)why do bands play gigs?
to promote albums.

I'm sure many managers might take that line of thinking but many bands would see it exactly the other way round. The album services the gig.

Any band that's worth **** out there will want to play gigs purely for the experience and enjoyment of playing and if you ask a 'real' band what their records are for they would tell you that it is to promote the band to the public and get them out to gigs. If a band doesn't value live performance at least as much as it does the recording process then they don't rate highly in my estimation.

Regarding your topic downloading isn't destroying the industry. The industry is destroying iteslf by overestimating the gullibility of the buying public and by constantly fighting new technologies instead of adapting to them.

Mossy Monk

with the amount of crap coming out over the last few years i have d/l first and then

if i liked it a lot i bought it for the complete package ie. sleeves etc.

if it was an alright average album it went on a blank cd

if it was **** it was deleted off the pc

Wook

Originally posted by ferdi
wook, dont call me names because you dont agree with me, its not clever.

just to make this clear... 'i didn't' it was in response of lemmings post that said something about his arse.. wasn't meant ..you..anyway.

and this should not be deleted because people do not agree with your opinion. But you might had made some better options in your poll.

the fnj

Ok first of all people are straying off the point. Your opinion on the quality of music being released is irrelevant as are views on how you think record companies would be better off spending their money. The reality is that if a band is selling CD’s, no matter how **** I think or you think they are, it means there is a market there and people want to buy their CD and listen to it.

The important question is “is downloading music harming the music industry?” the answer is no.

The music industry was making record profits the year Napster was at its peak, hardly an indication of Mp3 sharing damaging the industry.

The reason as to why record labels are so militant against it is because a record label job is to sell, as many CD’s as possible for every artist. Through their own ignorance they see programs like Napster costing them small amounts of sales, because some people would buy an album if they didn’t have the option of downloaded it, but this is not as common as they would have us believe. They ignore that point that is continually made that a lot of people, myself included will buy a CD after listening to a few tracks that they downloaded. A record label hears that the new “insert band here” album has been downloaded 1000 times and they automatically think that, that counts for 1000 less sales, they are missing the point that most people would not have bought it either way and some of that 1000 will buy it because they liked it after downloading it.

The record labels are just trying to justify increasing the price of CD’s if they really wanted to stop MP3 sharing they would load CD’s with tons of extra features in the booklets and extra media features on the CD, making it really worthwhile to buy the bands CD.

Record companies are trying to maximize profits and trying to squeeze as many sales as possible for every artist they release. Keep downloading music the record companies will not go hungry.

D-Generate

The music industry has more than likely suffered big hits in the single's business but it has probably sold more albums than it was before. I have not bought a single in years now because I would rather test the song out without haveing to spend €5. If I like the song and maybe a couple of others I will buy the album. I also find downloading music the only way to hear more underground stuff as the radio stations never play it and you are not going to exactly hear about them any other way. Oh, and one moral about the whole downloading business. I will never download a full album by a relatively small band/label, I would rather support them and buy the album instead. I do not have too much of a conscience when downloading off big bands/labels.

I wonder if those small bands on big labels would rather if you sent them a check for the price of the C.D and downloaded the album off the internet yourself? Why don't small bands skip the whole distrubution costs by releasing their album over the internet for say €8, a lot more than they would get by selling it in shops?

mike65

Home taping did'nt kill the industry and CD copying and downloading
wont either but lousy A&R and the obsession with flogging hi-gloss low grade music to 10 year olds might. As a hobby musician (until I get the big deal!) I welcome ppl scouring the net for tunes be they from established artists or the likes of me. I'd sooner be heard than not.

Artists with contracts might well have ambigious feeling on this matter as they like the idea of snubbing noses but also want to get rich. Good music will continue be bought I belive if only as there is something about a physical disk and its packaging that we all like I think.

I wonder if those small bands on big labels would rather if you sent them a check for the price of the C.D and downloaded the album off the internet yourself? Why don't small bands skip the whole distrubution costs by releasing their album over the internet for say €8, a lot more than they would get by selling it in shops?

I suspect many bands would quite like that but they like the idea of muscle behind the music to get it heard in as many markets as possible,the nets a wonderful thing but making sure your music is heard and bought can be difficult.

Many acts have by-passed the traditional route by releasing CDs through thier own website and via on-line retailers.
Prog-rockers Marillion raised £100,000 from thier fans to record an album which they then sold via thier website and via a label.

http://www.marillion.com/news/2000/1606.html check the section "Exciting Times"

Mike.

ferdi

Originally posted by Wook
But you might had made some better options in your poll.

true.

Greenbean

"Why don't small bands skip the whole distrubution costs by releasing their album over the internet for say €8, a lot more than they would get by selling it in shops?"

Because its very hard to get an audience. Thats were all the money goes in the music industry - marketing. Get a middle of the road, all singing all dancing young bunch of monkeys, then ensure you win in the charts by spending tons of money on marketing. Groom lots of these flash-in-pan acts, if even one works, then you are made due to the very expensive cd prices. Most publishers will admit they spend massive amounts of money on the marketing, its more guaranteed to keep you above water than quality control.

Why don't they groom good artists then.. increase the chances of success... well they take too long, they don't respond to pressure, and they actually have opinions and want to communicate and stuff (shock horror). The music industry is a bit of a battlefield for the publishers so all they are interested in is keeping accounts in the black by doing things that are most likely to succeed. Music that appeals to the lowest common denominator seems to be what they focus on.. and kids music. Occasionally the odd one slips through the net, like coldplay .. and they end up bigger than anyone else, but they're just a lucky catch.

Still thanks to most people being able to recognise good music instead of musical fashion trends (which appeals to the stupid and young) theres still some sort of chance for good artists to make it. If you really are good enough, you have a will of iron and you get that lucky break then the world is yours for the taking.

Kazaa, makes people realise music should be cheaper, and (gasp) perhaps even a basic human right. Kazaa helps you develop your own music taste, lets you listen to anything. Kazaa makes it very hard for the music industry to control musical styles. These things alone make life very difficult for the publishers and give them all the reason they need to try propoganda music sharing into in-existence. Kazaa also undoubtably does encourage people to download music for free.. and not bother buying it, but I'm also sure its leveling the playing field quite alot. Alot of bands by the wayside are actually getting a fair listening to and are suddenly finding their music in demand.

I personally couldn't give a damn if the entire music industry went up in smoke. If an artist were to only make their money from live gigs, and many had a decent living from it, this would be much better than only a few undeservingly getting very rich whilst everyone else floundered. You might argue then that we'd never really hear any of the worlds best artists if the publishers dissappeared, but I would argue we probably never have. Finally we do have the internet, we do have our own world wide distribution network, and I'm sure word-of-mouth bands would succeed much quicker if we weren't having the marketing bull**** pumped at us every day, especially at children (websites dedicated to scouting good bands would become everyones source of good music overnight). The cream of the crop would rise to the top as they tend to do.

Ethically? If we die with only music sharing as our crimes (crimes against rich people, and headless companies fighting for money), when in this world we have so much real problems and suffering, then I am absolutely certain this would in no way take away from our right to ask for a passage into heaven.

myhandle

Downloading music isin't free... after all you are paying for the connection bandwidth