Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 23103	2002-08-07 07:50:00	mp3 downloads	Downtown_Brown (1336)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
68998	2002-08-07 07:50:00	My brother is a reasonably well-known recording artist based in Orkland (poor bugger) Why do people continue to download music off the internet. It is stealing from those musicians, and hard enough for them to make a decent living as it is. Some people I have heard even record whole albums that they buy from a record retailer and then on-sell them. I wish that the manufacturers would put something in the software to stop people from doing this. How would people like the neighbourhood to raid your vegetable garden instead of buying / growing their own vegetables. I am not trying to upset anyone here, just having my say as a new member of Press F1	Downtown_Brown (1336)
68999	2002-08-07 08:09:00	I agree Unless the artist releases tracks for public use (and sometimes thats a good idea) it is simply stealing. Its little different to going into a record shop and shoplifting the CD, you are just stealing off a different person then.	godfather (25)
69000	2002-08-07 08:11:00	That is cool that you have your own say but unfortunately this topic has come up many times before and probably will continue to come up in the future . There are many different opinions on this subject some being good opinions and some being bad . I for one think that Music CD's are too expensive, especially albums from big artists . When CD's are pressed on a large scale It costs something ridiculously low as $3 per CD, now you take that figure and try to justify the cost that they charge you at a record store, frequently it is about 10x as much . It is also not really stealing from the musicians, but stealing from the record producers who normally make more money than the actual artists them selves, think about how much these people are earning . If you were earning that much would you be worried about loosing out on perhaps one or two million . It would be like me having 300 tomato plants and some one comes along ands steals 2 of them . I frequently download songs off the net, however the songs I download are often only one or two from a particular album . I would not normally buy the album so technically I am not ripping anyone off, It is more likely to get me interested in future album releases from the same artist . Any way thank god for the Warehouse who sell the recent release CD's for much cheaper than the Record stores . I have been rambling on enough now so I will go . Regards Sam	Sam H (525)
69001	2002-08-07 08:23:00	I see where you are coming from D_B, and I agree with what you are saying. There is one main reason why so many people do this, and one reason why some people are able to rationalise it. The recording companies rip off the artists. Usually the recording companies eg virgin, sony, emi etc. earn more from the record sales than the artists do. The recording companies do this by charginghigh prices for music, and then only passing minimal royalties to the artists. When people "pirate" music, the recording companies would like us to think it is hurting the artists. It would be, if the recording companies lower the artists commission to deal with the revenue lost through piracy (the recording companies don't give a toss about the artist, just the bottom line). They don't however. Artists commissions have not been lowered dramatically, the recording companies have taken the hit, and where possible, hiked prices. Why is it you think that the recording industry is kicking up all the fuss and not the artists. Those artists that are making a big deal (eg Eminem) have had their "contributions" to the campaign reimbursed by the record companies. The record companies know that people do care about their artists, and are thus play on their emotions by getting artists to stand up. The truth is, is that the recording companies have caused more harm to artists than piracy has, and it is the recording companies that are feeling the pinch. "So what - pirates are still stealing from the recording companies" you say? These are lerge companies that have been ripping off great musicians for years - it is about time something happened that brought attention to this and made the recording companies start to pay their dues. It is this reason why people steal music, and why they don't feel guilty about it. They do it because of the hugely restrictive prices that music companies demand for the cd's, and they don't care because they feel they are stealing off a large company that can afford it, not the artist. The same reasoning follows with software piracy - the consensus is that people would pay if the prices were realistic. The music and software is simply not worth the price charged. Value is defined as the amount agreed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The fact that people are not willing to pay the sellers price indicates that the price is too high. Piracy over the internet also plays an important role in a kind of backwards way. Artists that cannot afford to go to a record company can release their work on the internet, and get them selves heard and known which eventually translates to sales. I have often downloaded a tack from an artist I have never heard of, and wouldn't have given a second thought, and when I heard the track, I have gone and bought the record. This sale would not have ocurred if I hadn't heard the song first. My music taste is very off mainstream, and what I like DOES NOT get played on the radio, so the internet has performed for these artists a honourable service. When the greedy corporations realise that ripping off the little guy, and acting anti-competitively (read Micro$oft anti-trust) then piracy can be dealt with in an effective manner, and the restrictions may be effective as casual pirates will feel their conscience. Whilst the conscience of casual pirates is clear, piracy will continue. I know I am going to be flamed, but may I just qualify what I have said: I do not promote illegal activity, and do not want to encourage anyone (esp. on this forum). Anyone replying would be advised to state their case seriously and inteligently. I will not get involved in a flaming war. G P	Graham Petrie (449)
69002	2002-08-07 08:28:00	Nicely put Graham. :D :D Cheers Sam	Sam H (525)
69003	2002-08-07 08:31:00	Hmmm...on that logic its OK to steal electricity as well, its also invisible and hey, they make way to much money on it... Or to steal phonecards from a shop, on the same basis? Just because the albums are expensive is no justification, as expense is a relative term. If they were $10 that is still expensive to some, cheap to others. That new BMW Roadster is expensive, does that mean you would steal one? On the other side, I agree that exposure of a track now and then can give positive publicity and encourage sales. More should be released by the artists. "It costs something ridiculously low as $3 per CD" Hardware cost, yes. Factor in GST, Retail overheads, distributor overheads, cost of capital to fund the project (with no guarantee of profit), Artist royalty, taxes at every step....	godfather (25)
69004	2002-08-07 08:45:00	GF, I was not saying that it was OK as I knew that if I did, the first reply would be one like yours. What I was saying is that is why people feel that it is OK. There reasoning is flawed, but that IS the reasoning. I think that although, not the best solution, it does perform the function of creating awareness about the heavy ahndedness of recording companies. If that means that laws are changed, and the consumer gets a better deal, thenpiracy has served some purpose. The consumer and the artist are being riipped off, it is time things changed. I am not advocating anti-business and trade, as this is required for the economy, but encouraging consumer expenditure also improves the economy. >its OK to steal electricity as well, >its also invisible That it is invisible was never an issue I brought up. >If they were $10 that is still expensive to some, Yes, but they would be fair value. >That new BMW Roadster is expensive Yes, but value is added to it due to a reputation of high quality, and perceived value due to status. Demand has pushed up the price. As I expect to pay more for a BMW than a toyota, I would expect to pay more for popular CD's and gold-plated ones. There is no guarantee on quality of music. >It costs something ridiculously low as $3 per CD" >Hardware cost, yes. Factor in GST, Retail overheads, >distributor overheads, cost of capital to fund the >project (with no guarantee of profit), Artist royalty, >taxes at every step.... I agree. Sam is a little mistaken on the actual cost to make a CD. You are paying for the music, not the medium. This still does not negate my point however. G P	Graham Petrie (449)
69005	2002-08-07 08:47:00	Jeepers - *personal reminder to spellcheck all posts* I am sure you can work it out though. eg heavy handedness, not "ahnedness". Their not there etc.	Graham Petrie (449)
69006	2002-08-07 08:54:00	> I agree. Sam is a little mistaken on the actual cost > to make a CD. You are paying for the music, not the > medium. This still does not negate my point > however. Mistaken I am not, I read it an article (will try do dig out the link for you to have a read), The price is based on the really big producing artists that push out millions of CD's, just thinking about it now it may of been in US Dollars so I may have been a little bit off. Note this price is just the pressing of the CD.	Sam H (525)
69007	2002-08-07 08:59:00	Sam, yeah I know - what I meant was the TRUE price of the cd. That figure actually is higher than I expected for straight pressing of the cd. Doesn't matter, not an issue. You're probably right. G P	Graham Petrie (449)
1 2 3 4