Illegal Music Downloader's Spend "The Most on Music"

18

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Muerte

Okay, the UK is going to cut internet access to people who dl music illegally.  The problem I have with this is that, the internet is where most people find out more about music they hear on the radio or see on TV or are just browsing.

So these people will no longer be able to use the internet which in essence is all the promotion some of  these new bands and types of music get.

And this helps the music industry how?

avatar

tehninjapwns

*cough*net neutrality*cough*

avatar

b3ar

Putting a dollar figure on art is the crux of the problem.

What is the value of a song?

Let the artist decide. THEY are the ones who should be rebelling against The Music Industry, not the listeners.

Distribute the song yourself through Teh Intarwebz, set up your own recording sessions and do it your way. Don't jump on board the Gravy Train promising instant success.

Most true artists are flattered when their craft is appreciated. Most true artists will create whether or not there is money in it. 

avatar

grieserl

all artists need to distribute their music digitally themselves. That way they get the money they deserve!

avatar

s3kShUn7

zomg. HAHA. This was a comment that someone put on another post. About this very same topic. I dont remember where. MAXIMUM PC ACTUALLY READS COMMENTS! Most companies dont. Very cool.

avatar

snapple00

I steal quite a few cars, but luckily I buy more cars than the average person so it is OK.

avatar

LVmonkey

cause your arguing against actual statistics performed by now several different third party groups. It turns out that the same is true wih games and movies as it is with music. Almost like people want to freely sample that 20$ CD before dropping hte cash on what could be an awful album.

 Your car analogy is pure bunk, however, and with the way its delivered I doubt that anyone in here takes it more seriously than myself... and i don't. ...pure cheeze man, fromage.

avatar

snapple00

Another internet nerd that takes a random sarcastic comment literally. 

You know, because that survey said that for every illegal album downloaded, that same album was also purchased, and they show the proof. (That last line was sarcasm) But I suppose its OK if you download some albums for free, and buy others? Pick and choose which artist gets money?

But it was actual statistics by third parties, woo!!!!! Go back to 'sampling' your CD now kiddie..

avatar

JohnnyCNote

At least they do until they get caught, then the record companies and artists really do get nothing . . .

avatar

visibly_stealthy

     I am certain people would find ways out of the legal trouble. Maybe by like downloading a copyrighted material with the copyright protection and everything stripped. Or maybe complain that they got it off a p2p network and nothing said anything about a copyright. But if the law does take effect there are probably some people that will take theyre entire media collection put it all in one file and share and/or seed it. Then you only downloaded one file one time.Simple but seemingly effective. In my opinion this law will do nothing and will fail to register as significant, when the big companies that provide the services will have their users switching to other isp's. though there are places where only one isp is available. But who's gonna pay for the development of the tools and software in order to keep track of how many times each user is downloading a copyrighted material?

 I'm absolutely sure someone will want to cash in and develop, but to implement is also a whole other story. I mean personaly,....sure downloading copyrighted material for free is illegal in most cases. But also counting how many times each user is downloading copyrighted material, not to be redundant, should be illegal. I mean I'd feel uncomfortable if they knew that much, Invasion of privacy, again in my opinion is faaaarr worse. Come on' guys.........As always said two wrongs don't make a right.

 

In the hands of a master, any object can become a field improvised, lethal weapon.

avatar

WarCrime342

One can only assume how much an Artist really makes on every CD sold. But what about the concerts? I often find myself spending 4 times as much money on band merchandise at a concert than CDs in a store. A lot of bands which get much more profit from memorabilia than the CDs they sell. Most of these are small time bands, who make most of their money from tours, but how much are they really losing on a pirated album?

avatar

ubuntucuber

i have my own method that will get around  legally buying it, illegally downloading it, and not listening to music at all. Don't ask me for the method, i will not say it.

Proof of concept: i use this method to download all my music~UbuntuCuber

avatar

visibly_stealthy

 I have an inherent tendency to copy all songs from all of my freinds' mp3 players whenever i see they have one. That's where the majority of my music came from. But an ipod???? That's another story.....long story short F!@#$ an ipod.

 

In the hands of a master, any object can become a field improvised, lethal weapon.

avatar

vfxcorp

Debate what? There is nothing to debate. Theft is theft; stealing is stealing. If you download music illegally it's the same as walking into the store and stealing the CD. One way or another you obtained posession of the music without paying for it.

avatar

ArrecBarrwin

I respectfully disagree.  There is certainly a difference between physical theft and copyright infringement, which is what downloading music illegally entails.  In the former case, the property that once belonged to one person or group no longer does, because you have taken it from them.  In the latter case, it would be similar to making a "copy" of the person's property, so that now you own it as well.  Intellectual and physical property are different, my friend.

avatar

nduanetesh

I totally agree.  Stealing is stealing, whether they go on to buy music or not.  The implication here seems to be that if these people stopped stealing music, they would also stop buying music...which doesn't seem to make much sense.  Or, is it that we should allow people to steal music because they will subsequently buy more music?  Either way, it sounds like shaky logic.

avatar

Belboz99

I have often used peer-to-peer networks to get a better idea of an artists work before investing in it.   But, despite owning a digital copy on my HDD, which would be easily burnable, I instead choose to support the artist, by buying the CD, which not only gives me a full-quality hard-copy, but also all the associated materials such as CD artwork and often lyrics.

 

I had a rude awakening today.   I went to the local mall for the first time in almost 1 year.   I was horrified to find out that there no longer any music stores in the mall.   This mall is 2 stories tall, and contains nearly 200 shops, plus a full-blown food court.

 Furthermore,  the mall was the last vestige of music shops in our fair city of nearly 200,000 metro area.

 

We have ~200,000 people living within 20 miles of our city, and there exists only 2 stores that are dedicated towards music, a used CD store (about 500sqft) and Toad Hall, one of the oldest record stores out there, that has a very large collection of new and old records and books from most any time period.

 I find myself shopping for music at Toad Hall often, I've got a collection of roughly 50 LP's which my wife and I listen to almost daily on our turntable and receiver. 

 

But that's it!   200,000 people now get their music at places like Target, Best Buy, and Walmart.   I find it both sad and frightening.

 If there's ever been one binding factor of these 50 states, it was the music.   It was the music that fueled social / cultural revolution of the 1960's.   Most people when they identify a generation do so by music.   When we reach the point at which our radios blast the same 12 tracks every hour for weeks on end, and the masses are forced into purchasing their music across the isle from the socks and underwear isle, I fear our fair country has lost something, and that something may just end up being our identity.

 

Dan O. 

avatar

Donnie27

I don't post much here anymore but this one is worth changing that.  I know several artist and they are appalled at what's been going on and getting worse since the early days of Napster.  First I have to say that the comment that started all this is absolute BS.  Most file sharers are sharing to keep from spending money any money.  

The other guy is right, there is no debate, stealing is immoral, illegal and just flat out wrong.  Oh my goodness, one poster even asked why would an artist want to be paid, ROTFLMMFAO!  It's a job!!!!  No, they only get a cut (per cent is negotiated and is about XX% is many cases) of even live shows, good sold there and etc.....One act go 13% of the draw at the Mud Island Memphis!  Some artist own their own label while others have majority contracts from the record label.  The old "they don't make nothing from the CD" is weak at best!

Radiohead and others selling music on a pay what you like basis proved what's wrong when folks even illegally downloaded music they could have honestly paid nothing for. If it was free what was illegal? To make it legal Radiohead asked for a simple registration and type in ZERO as the amount paid.  DRM-less games was the next to prove folks given an opportunity "get away with it" would do just that and they did just that, pirated it even more.

So IMHO, I think the headline of this one is a 180 degrees wrong.  Not only when it comes to music, but software and any digitized medium/information.  With the worse offenders being the former East Block and Asia followed closely by Sweden then the Middle East. 

Donnie 

 

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.