Can you justify downloading illegal music?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by leilani on November 15, 2009 at 11:22am

Indeed I can! I do not download music without paying if its from an "indie" group or another group who really deserves the modest income their music may generate, but I think in the case of most artists, their incomes are so absurd (compared to non-musical artists) that it cannot really produce guilt in me personally...

also, considering that their talent is supposed to be singing/performing and not RECORDING, I feel like the proceeds from live performances should produce an adequate income!

Permalink Reply by Oats on November 15, 2009 at 12:29pm

Considering most smaller indie bands will put their music out to be downloaded just so others can get exposure and hopefully come to a show and buy their other EPs and such, it's not really the small bands that downloading is effecting, it's the big bands (like Metallica) who whine and bitch because their losing tens of thousands of dollars when people don't buy their overpriced albums. Metallica is kind of a bad example for the downloading problem because most people DO download the entire album whereas with other bands, people just want one or two songs. Why? Because the rest of the album sucks.

Okay, so then what about iTunes? Yeah, so I'm gonna pay a dollar per song and not even own the mp3? I heard they were going to change that and take off the restrictions from them, but even so... a dollar per song adds up very quickly. And back to our lovely indie bands, most of them aren't even available for download from iTunes because they're not big enough. So who is this system helping? Oh yes, the bands bathing in hot-tubs in the backs of limousines.

So here's my justification. The biggest asset a band can have is exposure. Without exposure, there would be no album purchases, no attendance to concerts, etc. What the underground music sharing activity has done is exponentially increase the exposure of the full spectrum of bands. People will be more likely to invest money into a band that they have heard, but who is going to pay $15 for a CD of a band they've never heard before? (I do that sometimes, but most people don't)

For the record, I do not share my music, I'm just a leech and take others music. I believe it is the sharing that is illegal because you are distributing music without permission.

Permalink Reply by Mike DiGrande on November 15, 2009 at 2:06pm

This was actually the topic of my media ethics paper.

The "downloading-is-killing-artists" argument is passe in a post-In Rainbows world. Artists like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have shown that giving away free music can still allow for huge dividends. Radiohead made more off the In Rainbows "pay what you want" model than their ENTIRE BACK CATALOG that was signed to EMI. While one can argue that Radiohead are an established band with a legacy, but let's be realistic, their last top selling album was in 1997. They might have been critical darlings for the 2000s, but they were not appealing to a broad populist audience like Mylie Cyrus.

Considering the average amount people donated was $8, and about 3/4 of the people paid nothing for it, I'd say that's a success.

I also agree with what Jane and Oats have said. The live show is paramount for an artist, and those that give music away can recoup "losses" with such a live performance. I spent about $100 to see NIN on their "Lights In The Sky" tour. Steep ticket, but the visuals made it unlike ANY concert experience I've ever been to. Sure, there were embedded costs in that ticket (For the stage production), but I know a large of it went to Reznor, who is independent from any label. My question is Reznor has shown this can work, and work well, so why aren't other labels pushing their artists to follow suit? Moreover, why aren't labels trying to work WITH Reznor instead of trying to exploit him?

There's another thing to consider: If one buys into the system of paying for albums from your local Sam Goody or Best Buy, I think there is a loss of culture that stems from that. I'm a member of WhatCD, a private torrent server that has a huge mass of pirated music. While you can agree or disagree on its ethics, the one thing that it offers me is a tight community that CARES about the artists. There is a forum filled not with evil, hidden in the shadows, conspiracy theorists but fans. These are people that bond over music in a very special way. But if art becomes too much of a commodity, this is lost. In my opinion, labels could care less about this aspect.

The problem with paying for music is that so much of it goes to the label, an entity that does not trust its customer base, rather than the person that actually created the work in question. The compact disc mark up is OUTRAGEOUS considering the embedded costs are very manageable. Radiohead appealed to the moral center of their fans, treated them as equals. THIS is what labels should worry about, not how they can squash piracy.

I don't think it's a simple issue as saying "Yay" or "Nay" for piracy. Artists have begun a shift something far more personal but the labels need to follow suit. Until they break out of this idea that the fans are "out to get them," then I see no reason not to take matters into one's own hands and download.

Also, food for thought: Pirates are the ones buying most of the music ANYWAY.

Permalink Reply by OurLittleAshley on November 15, 2009 at 9:29pm

My answer is so not as long as everyone else's - but I do NOT download music illegally.

My dad really cracked down on that when we were younger (Napster, anyone?) so I just sort of got used to not doing that...

I am a huge dork and listen to NPR most of the time when I'm driving, anyway. ;)

Permalink Reply by Phyllis on November 16, 2009 at 12:02am

I'm with other people on this - if it's a lesser known artist, i will (9 times out of 10) by the album - even if I have already downloaded it (or singles from it) because for that artist, record sales are how they track themselves, and they're just starting out.

But bigger bands/artists? No shame. they charge me $100 a pop to see them? Hell yes i'm going to rip your music from a livejournal community (or elsewhere)

Permalink Reply by Marccccc on November 16, 2009 at 10:03am

As a former musician (a rock band in high school, thank you very much) I can definitely see both sides of the argument.

For bands who are trying to "make it" and get some recognition and an increased fan base, they would gladly release their music for free to get people to come to their concerts and spread the word about their stuff. They'd give anything for some people to show up and sing along with their songs.

And then the success disconnect comes into play. Bands forget what it's like to crave the recogniton because it's freely available at any time once they've hit it big. They then judge their success by their bank account or number of gold records as opposed to their number of fans (which has been determined by the execs and radio stations which play their music nonstop). Successful bands no longer care about reaching a new audience, they expect it will come to them no matter what.

Without free music the small bands would have almost no way of becoming recognized. I personally enjoy discovering new music.

I also tend to think that if you pay $150 too see U2 in concert that you should feel free to illegally download their new album. Just my two cents. There are more ways to financially support music than buying a song on iTunes.

Permalink Reply by Andrew G on November 16, 2009 at 10:54am

John Lennon said that music belongs to everyone. It is only the publishers who feel it can be owned.

Permalink Reply by Mike DiGrande on November 16, 2009 at 12:03pm

This is why John Lennon was the best Beatle.

Permalink Reply by Andy K on November 16, 2009 at 11:47am

I haven't downloaded any free music for the past 2 or 3 years. Only bought 2 CDs, purchased a bunch of songs from sites similar to iTunes (though not actually from iTunes), and got a bunch of CDs from friends.
Unfortunately, most bands really don't have entire CDs of good music - there are usually only 2 or 3 good songs and the rest is junk :( I just can't justify spending $15-20 for 2 songs.

Permalink Reply by Andrew G on November 16, 2009 at 12:25pm

Did you know that it would cost someone $26,000 to fill up a 160gb iPod with legally downloaded music? Obscene.

Permalink Reply by Oats on November 24, 2009 at 12:14pm

That amazes me. I don't even want to think about how much my music collection is worth.

Permalink Reply by Heather on November 16, 2009 at 3:08pm

I know of bands that leak their music on purpose to get their name and music out there.

I don't think that I am hurting a musicians career by downloading music because I go to about 20 shows a year, and when I absolutely love something I always buy it. If I go to a show and I see an opening band I like I buy their CD. I rarely ever buy from stores. They were actually charging $20 for the new Imogen Heap album at Best Buy and I think that is beyond ridiculous considering I can buy tickets for her concert for about the same price, maybe a little more.

I always always always support the smaller artists but how I hear most of their music is from downloading and then I go out to buy their stuff if I really like it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page