Do you think copying music to give away free, is okay?
here’s the view that I share with others:
Let’s say you go to the grosery store and start giving away all their food without paying for it. If the store complains that your stealing, you accuse them of caring about nothing but money. Sounds rediculous, yes? Yet it’s precisely what those who copy illeaglly copy music and software are doing.
-Ted Nugent, hard rock drummer
Music companies may be greedy, but the Recording Industry Assosiation of America said that they had lost 39% of sales in the summer of 2001, thanks to napster and it’s clones.
If it’s not your music, it’s not yours to copy and distribute. The fact that the RIAA might respresent the pinnacle of greed is completely beside the point. There’s a very effective, very legal way to communicate your dissatisfaction - keep your money, and let the RIAA keep its music.
Whether it’s right or not is one thing. But before casting judgement of technical morallity on anyone for copying music, any loss of record sales is at the hands of the recording industry themselves. The online market is(was) a very lucrative opportunity for music and entertainment all together. They failed to do anything about this, and napster bit them in the butt.
Is it legally wrong, yes. Is it morally wrong, it can be argued. Is it their fault people are doing it, yes. Just like complaining about VCRs, they are not going to win. Instead of putting so much time into sueing and whining, why not make music worth buying. There is way too many CDs in the music store, that have filler songs, that they bought from some song-writer, for a cheap price, in which they get no credit for, and 90% of the CD sucks. If they offered a way to purchase (for download) singles, for a decent prices, I would have no problem paying for them or a subscription.
As for me personally. I buy albums in which I respect the artist and their music. I do not think twice about dropping my money on someone who is creative, someone who is good to the fans, someone who is worth respecting in this day and age. However, when it comes to something like the boy bands or britney spears (not saying I would have their CDs in the frist place), I would not think twice before copying it.
It’s not precisely what those who copy music do! If you do that at the grocery store, the loss of inventory will be noticed and through accounting there will be a tangible loss as the overhead of production will not be recovered per item. Where in copying the music, the inventory and the accounting office would not notice a thing. They can try and calculate fluctation among the market as a whole, but nothing significant. Even so, they have no proof of direct attribution to a specific cause.
Who did the study? What is the evidence? What are the links?
Does the prosecutor ever go up to the defense, and say “We don’t have much on ya, so lets get lunch”, NO… they take the evidence, find some links, even if circumstantial, and make the connections. Was there more shark attacks last year then in previous years? The media called it “the year of the shark!”. The point is, you can links anything to anything. Especially if it is for your good.
I read it in a magazine, but the evidence is there, in there records if they make x amount one year and -x amount the next year, that’s your evidence.
Do you seriously think they would lie about their profits? Not only is it a crime, but it’s also very easy for a whistle blower to come out with something.
Yea i dont belive in the copying of someones music without payuing for it
and all that stuff.
but that 39% loss and stufft, is that all caused by p2p sharing?
maybe their are other things that should be look at instead of just p2p as
the cause.
some/many groups have become fully clear of record industry by selling
online.
And even with no p2p sharing people would just burn the music to cd.
Finally,
maybe if half the music on the cds they are releasing was worth while
wouldn’t profits go up?
cheers 8)
I don’t think it’s ok to do this. If you want to charge me for a copy of your work I don’t feel I have the right to get it for free. If I did I’d be using that warez copy of Maya a guy offered me a while back.
Music is a kind of art, it’s nothing that should be compared to groserys!!!
Sure there should be a way that both RIAA and the artist get all the financial credit they deserve for their work, with out being victims of piracy…
Ofcourse, they should be paid for it and no one has the right to “steal” other people’s work!!!
But there are legitimate reasons for copying a piece of art, also!!! Have you ever heard of “education”, for example??? Someone would want to copy that song, because he can’t afford to buy the album, in order to take it home and practice playing music (just an example).
In Greece a CD costs around 20 EUR!!! The CD as a material, costs no more than 0.50 EUR!!! Let’s say they pay the artist 5 EUR. That makes 5.50 EUR.
you are right on certain point but here what I think: a cd cost 20 euros…and you said if someone have no money to buy a cd then he can download it…but If he have enouh money to buy a pc then…he should have enough money to buy a cd of 20 euro…no? and yea this is like the Nike ocmpagny…a pair of shoes cost them like 2 dollar and they sell it like 100-200 dollar…I hate those compagny!
Uhm… Do you have any idea how many people are involved in the making of that cd? It’s not just the cd and the musicians. There are such things as design, packaging, distribution, legal fees, sound engineers, studio technitions, marketing etc. The shops from where you buy them too have to pay their employees, ground rent etc. The recording studios have enormous overheads. One single professional studio microphone can cost thousands of dollars.
Selling music online can cut some costs such as distribution but the bulk of expenses is still there. Today setting up a studio is becoming much cheaper and a not-so-demanding hobbyist might be able to set-up a studio which will cost him/her in the lower 4 figures but to set-up a good professional studio where you can have close to ‘total’ control is still going to cost you unbelievably high sums of money - :o :-?
Well, 20 EUR price for a CD if you consider the annual income compared to the cost of life here in Greece, is a lot of money…
ilac, what you say is true… but then again I am no way going to feel pitty for those music companies… They make enough money out of others missery!!! Not to mention that they get to decide who’s worth to become an artist and who’s not, with their own unique “artistic” criterion (money).
Anyway my main point was, that there are legitimate reasons (educational purposes, for example) for someone to be able to copy a piece of art, such as a song…
The problem isn’t the copiers really though. It is the music industry, as a few already pointed out.
Apparenlty they are unable to see what a music recording is.
The music industry is trying to sell music recordings as a product, when really it’s nothing more than information (data). And now with the internet, basicly information is free for all who are connected. I’ve heard about every last little trick they try to pull with encoding cd’s and it’s all nonsense and can’t ever work.
Basicly, trying to sell music is nonsense.
And by the way… only the absoluty bloody famous musicians make real money from cd sales. Most musicians really live from performing live. That’s where the money normally comes from. That and merchandising.
I think in the end (and no it’s not too far fetched) music will not be sold anymore at all. It’ll be given away to draw people in to buy actual products. Actual products like posters/stickers/t shirts those are things you can charge for… music isn’t.
See they can charge you for a cd only cause it was the only means for transporting/storing a music recording at high quality… we don’t really need cd’s anymore (yes mp3 is terrible but better will come with more bandwidth).
The world is changing… I say they should look to the future in stead of trying to keep the old way intact.
Actually it’s not their own unique criterion but the listeners. they choose who to back up based on who is most marketable, and a marketable product is that which the majority (or rich minority) want. They invest their money in what hopefully is a product the market is prepared to invest it’s money in.
If it wasn’t for them and their choice of investment most of you would never have discovered or got to enjoy a lot of the musicians you enjoy today. If you stop buying the products they are investing in, then they will stop investing in the artists and then you won’t even have any new music to download, or copy for whatever supposed legit reasons you have. You’ll only get to hear new talent on crappy inferior bootleg copies or have pay to travel to hear live performances…
… and all those that ever bought originals get to become rich from owning what would become highly collectable items!
ps. Skontar, When I say ‘you’ I mean ‘you’ in general - ie. this is not a personal attack
My point is this: no mater what the product you have NO RIGHT to steal it and give it away for free. I don’t care what your selling you have no right to steal it let alone give it away free!!!
Even if it costs 20 bucks for a cd(alot of cds are like that here in america even) you still have no right to steal it.
There is no excuse for stealing. You seem to think so.
The internet was not designed for you to use it to break the law.
