# Downloading Music or Albums



## ShadowRiffer (Apr 19, 2006)

its become a big issue, but only if you are not buying it. What are you opinions on this ? ok.....GO!


----------



## SnowBlind (Feb 26, 2006)

I buy CD's of artists I really like to have collections. For example collecting all of the bob dylan cd's or whatever. Its a cool thing to do. But if its a random song from a band im kinda familiar with ill download it.


----------



## Vassago (Oct 15, 2006)

I usually download stuff until I can buy the album...which for most of the bands I listen to, can take a long time cause they're mostly european bands...


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I download a lot of music, and I buy a lot of music. All in all I'd say I fall into that category of people who buy MORE because of downloading being available. I get to hear more stuff, and I get to try before I buy. 

I am looking forward to when MySpace offers downloads for sale because I have heard a lot of independent bands on there I really like.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Unless the artist has given permission, downloading is theft, plain and simple.

You can rationalize it in many ways but you are stealing from musicians. Now, if the artist has an agreement with a downloading service or has the music posted as samples on their sites, great. There's a lot of merit in doing this.

But, it's not up to me or you to decide whether an artist should or shouldn't allow downloading. If they haven't expressly granted permission, it's theft, no different than stealing cable or stiffing the plumber for his services.


----------



## hoser (Feb 2, 2006)

yep, I download lots of stuff. stuff I used to have, stuff I only have on vinyl or cassette, live shows, videos, import albums, rarities, checking out new bands and albums before I buy, etc.

still buy just as much as I did before the internet. maybe more. crazy isn't it.

what's really changed for me is the way that I buy music. I do not shop at local stores and buy most of my cds/ records from ebay or online stores for half the price.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i think stealing from people is great. does anyone know where i can steal a brand new strat?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

I've never downloaded music from any site. I've had friends give me certain songs from their purchased collections though.

All said and done I buy 99.5 percent of my music.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I'll download it if I can't find it in a music store downtown or online. I usually download stuff from lesser known acts, if I like it I'll go look for it, if I don't I delete it. In the last year I would say I have bought several CD's due to downloading.


----------



## helloapocalypse (Oct 5, 2006)

if i like the music that i've downloaded, i usually buy the album. if i don't, i usually delete the mp3s. so basically, downloading is a way for me to sample music, i think.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Exercise in futility*

Getting harder and harder these days to rip off anything for my vinyl collection...


----------



## Xanadu (Feb 3, 2006)

I dl stuff that I already have a copy of, like my dad has hundreds, probably thousands, of records, tapes, and cds which i could rip to mp3, but I just dl it instead.


----------



## lolligagger (Feb 4, 2006)

I like the experience of hearing the entire album so I always pay for my music. I usually hear about new and interesting artists on our local public radio station. You don't have to give money to the radio station but twice a year they have a sponsorship drive. Sometimes I pledge my support and sometimes I don't...depends on how many $$$ are in my pocket. But no, I don't download "free" music.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Alot of bands give away their stuff and let you download them, sometimes even on their own site. Its usually because they were ****ed over by a label. Bands make 95% of their money from touring. Alot of times, an MP3 is the only way you will ever get to hear some bands. I can walk into HMV, or CD Warehouse or whereever and I can guarentee you that at any time I will only find cds from about 5% of the bands I listen too. Last week I wanted to get the Rods discography on cd. I have it on record, but I wanted the cds. I emailed Carl Canedy, the Rods drummer, and he cant even get the cds. Downloading is not evil at all. If you want to see evil in the music industry its major labels and ticketmaster...................


----------



## Xanadu (Feb 3, 2006)

^^
dont the artists only get like 5% of cd sales anyway...if that...?


----------



## james on bass (Feb 4, 2006)

This is a very touchy subject. On the one hand, I find it theft and ripping off musicians. On the other hand, it's alowed me to sample a band I've never heard anything from, and in many cases prompting me to buy the album. I'm on dial-up, so it's not feasable for me to download complete albums at any rate.

As a musician in a cover band, downloading tunes is an invaluable tool to me now. A lot easier than in the 80's. I remember sitting by the radio for hours just waiting to hit record to catch a song the band wanted to do. Don't need to buy or borrow an album for a band I don't like, but happen to be covering. 

I like MP3's for the simple fact I can make various mix CDs from my own personal collection.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I agree with James, if it is good I'll go out and buy it. Also a lot I'm looking for is not available in your local music stores. Not much different than borrowing your buddies album and taping it to cassette which was the way before the internet...


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I think the bottom line is, right or wrong it's just become a reality. I am 30 and it's fairly common place for me. Imagine what it's like for someone who is 15? So I think critisizing people for doing it is wrong and unproductive. You can only hope people support the bands by buying material if they really like it, and checking out the bands live. People need to find ways to work with the technology.

I personally think the future is when sites like MySpace start allowing anyone to easily sell their music (as they plan to do). Right now it's kind of a hassle to get your songs on other pay services. Something like MySpace is ideal.

Again, and whether it's right or wrong the music business really harmed themselves. The issues with how they treat artists were already mentioned. But what about the issues of CD prices? The cost of CD manufcaturing has dropped massively over the years as technology has improved, but the prices of CD's have not followed that trend at all. I buy tons of 'bargain bin' stuff, but it's my belief that ALL Cd's should be that price anyway. I don't think a CD should ever cost over $15.


----------



## Emohawk (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, I can see it from two points of view.

1 - the Artist/label
From the artists standpoint (depending on the artist) and moreso form the label's standpoint it certainly is theft. However, that's based on the assumption that the person downloading doesn't purchase the material at some point.

2 - the Consumer
From the consumer's standpoint, downloading is an opportunity to preview new music that they might never have exposure to and expands their interest. This can result in more purchases. However, if not it's just put abuse.

Now I fall into the second school here. For a while I had practically stopped buying CD's. Then I hooked into the the internet and got to check out a boatload of music I never would have heard from other sources. So, in the last 2 or 3 years I've gotten back into somewhat of a DVD habit and 90%+ of my purchases are a direct result of MP3 downloads. So, in my case downloading has actually dramatically increased my purchases, and I have developed a list of stuff I want that is as long as my arm.

Granted, I don't buy 30-40 CD's a year like I once did, but that's because I've filled in most of the back catalog of old stuff I want (and I have a DVD addiction also). But thanks to the internet I now am back to purchasing 20 or so a year, and I had been down to under 5.

It's a really tough issue really. My biggest complaint is not that the record companies and artists are whining about lost revenues (downloading is not the only reason, and not even the biggest reason IMHO - but that's a whole other rant). My issue is that they have been spending all their time & money trying to hurt their own target markets rather than invest in trying to find ways to adjust to new consumer shopping needs/wants. The labels have been force-feeding what THEY want us to listen to for so long that they're afraid to change. That is their biggest problem.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Emohawk said:


> Well, I can see it from two points of view.
> 
> 1 - the Artist/label
> From the artists standpoint (depending on the artist) and moreso form the label's standpoint it certainly is theft. However, that's based on the assumption that the person downloading doesn't purchase the material at some point.
> ...



Saying downloading is acceptable if you later buy (or intend to do so) the disk is a bit like saying "oh I only borroewed that ---- from Walmart. I intend to go in later and give them the money".


My view is that the technology has changed the industry for keeps. There's no sense clinging to the way things used to be. Bands and the industry in general are scrambling to find effective ways to be paid for downloading. That's fine and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Downloading is here to stay.

The fact remains, that unless the owner of the intellectual property you are downloading has expressly granted permission, you're stealing (Canada's pathetic intellectual property rights laws notwithstanding).


----------



## aaron (Mar 6, 2006)

I have aslo heard this side of the story,Free music help's smaller band's get exposure.Correct me if I'm wrong but the main opposition to free music seem's to be massive band's (ie,Metallica,Arrowsmith,ect..)I have yet to hear bands such as NOFX,Belvedere,or other "working"bands do to much bitching about it,It gives them exposure and draws larger crowds to their shows,inturn making them more cash.I am pretty close to one fairly popular Canadian band and we have had the discussion many times.They have told me free burning was one of the best thing's to happen to them,not alot of people are willing to pay 20 buck's for a C.D just to check out a band,but if they download a few song's, go to a friday night show pick up a C.D and a T well then everyone except the label is better off.
I have also heard it said like this,"We play music,for people to listen to,the more that listen to our music the better, period." 
That being said,I can understand why band's would get pissed,but I would still like to know a percentage figure of how much a Large band is losing due to free burning.


----------



## Emohawk (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Saying downloading is acceptable if you later buy (or intend to do so) the disk is a bit like saying "oh I only borroewed that ---- from Walmart. I intend to go in later and give them the money".


Depends on how you look at it. It's a lot like recording a song from the radio. The only difference with downloading now and taping/burning back in the day is the volume of music people have access to (and the ease/immediacy of doing it). Not saying it's right or wrong...just stating the fact of the whole issue.

That being said, the home recording industry has made it possible for a LOT more music to get out there that would never have been in the past, and most of it would have no chance of exposure through mainstream channels. I know most of the stuff I've bought lately I'd have never heard without downloading.

So, from an artists standpoint, especially an independant artist or for indie labels, downloading is a double-edged sword. You get the music out to a MUCH larger audience than you had any hope of hitting otherwise, but you also open the door for "thieves".

As for the recording industry itself, their fear is having to deal with informed consumers. They've lived for decades on selling CD's, albums & tapes with one or two good songs and the other 80% being garbage filler. Now consumers have the ability to pick & choose what they want to listen to and that's scaring a lot of people to death. Instead of trying to find a way to adjust to a changing consumer they's wasted 5 years in an attempt to protect the old way by punishing the very consumers that support them. It's simply an ass-backward approach that will never work. Some of them are finally trying, but their hearts just aren't in it yet.

Now I'm not niave enough to think that there aren't plenty of people out there abusing the heck out of the whole deal. I can only speak for myself when I say I do download stuff, but only for the purpose of giving it a spin before I go out and spend my hard-earned cash. If I don't like something, I toss it. If I do like it, I buy it (or add it to my "must buy" list). The racks and racks of CD's in my living room are testament to that.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

aaron said:


> I have aslo heard this side of the story,Free music help's smaller band's get exposure.Correct me if I'm wrong but the main opposition to free music seem's to be massive band's (ie,Metallica,Arrowsmith,ect..)I have yet to hear bands such as NOFX,Belvedere,or other "working"bands do to much bitching about it,It gives them exposure and draws larger crowds to their shows,inturn making them more cash.I am pretty close to one fairly popular Canadian band and we have had the discussion many times.They have told me free burning was one of the best thing's to happen to them,not alot of people are willing to pay 20 buck's for a C.D just to check out a band,but if they download a few song's, go to a friday night show pick up a C.D and a T well then everyone except the label is better off.
> I have also heard it said like this,"We play music,for people to listen to,the more that listen to our music the better, period."
> That being said,I can understand why band's would get pissed,but I would still like to know a percentage figure of how much a Large band is losing due to free burning.



My band isn't currently gigging, but the last time we were was when sites like MySpace were taking off. I can say %75 of our gigs during the last 2 years we played were directly related to people being able to get mp3's of our material and offering us shows. And our lifeblood was getting decent gigs, not selling cd's because we had no label or distribution. And I can say for a fact that when people came out to the shows, they bought our CD's even though they owned the mp3's. And a key reason behind that is we charged a very fair price for the albums. 

So no one can speak for all bands when it comes to the issues of 'right or wrong' with downloading. And there ARE business models that work.


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2006)

If the LAW doesn't say it's stealing, then how can it still be stealing?

Music/file sharing in Canada has been ruled to be Fair Use, just like having a photocopier in a public library.

Besides, if you're not sharing your music, what's the point of making it?


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"I did NOT have sex with that woman!"*



ClintonHammond said:


> If the LAW doesn't say it's stealing, then how can it still be stealing?
> 
> Music/file sharing in Canada has been ruled to be Fair Use, just like having a photocopier in a public library.


Geez, and I'M the one accused of being too right wing and having no compassion!

It's an interesting sign of the times that many today can miss a point that seems obvious to someone who grew up in the tail end of the hippy era.

Just because it's technically within the law doesn't automatically make something right or wrong. It's just legal, that's all. Laws are far from perfect and ambulance-chasing lawyers and crooked politicians corrupt the law for fun and profit every day.

Ask any farmer in a so-called "Green Belt". This is one of the biggest scams ever created and yet it's all perfectly legal. "Green Belts" are great tools for attracting votes from city folks. We all want to save the planet and be on the side of the angels, right?

The kicker is that the only reason we lose farmland is because a farm becomes no longer profitable, for a lot of reasons that could make up a different thread. If a farm DID make money why would the farmer want to sell? Farmers perhaps more than anybody farm for the love of the lifestyle and resist offers to turn a quick buck selling out. Farms stay farms for family generations, as long as they provide a good living.

Today many farmers find that they just can't compete with imported food from countries with huge agricultural subsidies. Then they find that if they want to retire they can't! There's a Niagara Escarpment Commission or a "Green Belt Commissar" who says that the land can only be sold to someone who will continue to farm it.

Who in their right mind would buy a farm that can no longer compete?

Even severing off a lot or two for a country house is verboten. In the past such severances were a way for a farmer to provide a retirement income. After all, farmers have no company pension. Their land is their equity. Green Belt laws prevent them from cashing in any of that equity to support them in their twilight years.

Yet somehow if a farmer wants to sell a lot and can't get a severance, some fellow well connected politically in the area will show up. HE has no problem arranging a severance at all! Of course, since he's the only one in a position to take that lot off the farmer's hands he can make a very LOW offer...usually far less than the land would get in a normal situation.

All perfectly legal and it happens every day. I've personally witnessed it myself more than once in my circle of friends.

Care to re-think that definition of stealing?



ClintonHammond said:


> Besides, if you're not sharing your music, what's the point of making it?


Well, some of us who don't live in our parent's houses anymore would like to pay a mortgage and feed our kids. Is it too much to ask that a musician can be paid full time to share his music with us?

What's more, most music developed by "artists" that never had the opportunity to play full-time making a living but rather holed up in their basement studio after their day gig tends to be CRAP! 

Maybe that's why so much indie stuff today tends to be so simple to play. I mean, if I can play it it MUST be crap! ;-)


----------



## Emohawk (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> In fact, under the Canadian scheme, you *pay* for the ability to copy music every time you pay the "blank tape" levy that the government imposes on sales of storage media. Under the Canadian scheme, that money then goes to compensate the artists for having their works copied.


Yeah - a lot of people tend to conveniently overlook this fact, and that you're paying that levy regardless of how you use the blank media. The unfortunate thing is most of the cash collected is still sitting in a pile somewhere waiting to be distributed to the artists. I don't know how the heck they can distribute it fairly. It's not like they can know that Joe Blow copied 13 Metallica CDs, 4 Zeppelin, 1 Dixie Chicks, and 32 Bob Dylan with that spindle of 50 blanks he bought yesterday. As you say, it's a fine idea in principle.

Does that levy apply to ALL blank media or just to stuff that's labelled "for music" or whatever? It's basically the same product in slightly different packaging.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Besides, if you're not sharing your music, what's the point of making it?


...let me know if you're interested in sharing your job skills for free. i could use a little help without having to pay for it.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Alot of bands give away their stuff and let you download them, sometimes even on their own site. Its usually because they were ****ed over by a label. Bands make 95% of their money from touring. Alot of times, an MP3 is the only way you will ever get to hear some bands. I can walk into HMV, or CD Warehouse or whereever and I can guarentee you that at any time I will only find cds from about 5% of the bands I listen too. Last week I wanted to get the Rods discography on cd. I have it on record, but I wanted the cds. I emailed Carl Canedy, the Rods drummer, and he cant even get the cds. Downloading is not evil at all. If you want to see evil in the music industry its major labels and ticketmaster...................


...i would wager there is not one person here that would claim that an artist should _not_ be allowed to give their music away for free. the people i/we oppose are those who believe they are _entitled_ to get their music for free.

its a truly bizarre concept, yet i am quite certain that not one of you would be willing to work for me without getting paid.

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Lots of guys work for free, I've done it many times. Just take the credit, or have a bit of fun. Its not really work at all. If you play solely for Payola$, thats fine, but most people dont, they do shows/cds for the fun of it. To say that the bands complaining about this stuff like Metallica are starving, we know that aint true. Put a post looking for people to guest on their next album for free, what are the results? These are the guys complaining the most. If anyone should be complaining about it, its label executives who cant get another big bonus. No one has yet addressed the fact that songs on the radio are always available for free, so why not mp3s. If bands want to get compensation they should do what Manowar do, but none of them do. Manowar sell their songs and albums on their own website. This ensures that the money goes directly to the band. Its a hell of alot better than it going to some slimeball exec who cuts 5% to the band, and then whines because someone downloaded some songs and his 95% raping fee has been lost...............


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

There's another thing that really bugs me. If the labels got together and created a decent pay service that included music from ALL the major labels I sure as heck would use it. And I am betting a lot of other people would too. But the greed shows through and they all divide their music among different pay services instead of working together. There ARE online music busniness models that could work, but they are all stuck in the dark ages.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

With them already going after tab, the next big thing will be bands covering other bands songs. Watch out you ****ing theives! How dare you play the song we wrote! ****ing scumbags....................


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> There's another thing that really bugs me. If the labels got together and created a decent pay service that included music from ALL the major labels I sure as heck would use it. And I am betting a lot of other people would too. But the greed shows through and they all divide their music among different pay services instead of working together. There ARE online music busniness models that could work, but they are all stuck in the dark ages.


...exactly!!!

-dh


----------



## hoser (Feb 2, 2006)

I wouldn't use an online service. I like buying records and cds.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2006)

" Care to re-think that definition of stealing?"
Nope... because your farmland analogy is irrelevant.... 

"don't live in our parent's houses"
I haven't lived in my mothers house for more than half my life... 

"under the Canadian scheme, you *pay* for the ability to copy music"
Thank you... I'd forgot to mention that point! 

"i could use a little help"
What help do you need... If I can assist you, I'd be happy to. Maybe you need help learning how not to double post? Eh

" No one has yet addressed the fact that songs on the radio are always available for free"
That example I figured was included in the "Fair Use" example I made earlier, about the photocopier in a public library.... 

"I like buying records and cds."
I prefer to buy CDs directly from the artist... That way they get ALL of the 20 bucks I give 'em for a CD... As I'm mostly into the folky kinda singer-songwriter world, it's pretty easy to do, meet them face-to-face....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Did I once vote for you?*



ClintonHammond said:


> " Care to re-think that definition of stealing?"
> Nope... because your farmland analogy is irrelevant....





ClintonHammond said:


> "If the LAW doesn't say it's stealing, then how can it still be stealing?"


My pardon. I assumed from your words that you defined stealing by an act being within the law. My "farmland analogy" was meant as just one example of an act being legal that many would still define as stealing. Obviously then, you would not.




ClintonHammond said:


> "under the Canadian scheme, you *pay* for the ability to copy music"
> Thank you... I'd forgot to mention that point!


Who are you paying? The artist or the government? Or is that not important? 





ClintonHammond said:


> "I like buying records and cds."
> 
> I prefer to buy CDs directly from the artist... That way they get ALL of the 20 bucks I give 'em for a CD... As I'm mostly into the folky kinda singer-songwriter world, it's pretty easy to do, meet them face-to-face....


So if you've never met them face to face it's ok to deny them the $20 or whatever? You pay those you meet personally and download all the rest?



ClintonHammond said:


> Music/file sharing in Canada has been ruled to be Fair Use, just like having a photocopier in a public library.


A photocopier has no family to support.



ClintonHammond said:


> Besides, if you're not sharing your music, what's the point of making it?


Is getting paid for your music not sharing it? I would think that's the highest form of praise. Where is the appreciation in taking something for free? Are you not then telling the artist that his music is worth precisely...nothing?

I'm having a hard time following your logic here. Are you saying that an artist has no right to insist on being paid for his music? That no one should expect to ever be a professional artist, by the dictionary definition of professional meaning someone who receives payment as opposed to an amateur?

This is only the logical converse of claiming that taking it for free by downloading is ok, by a strict lawyer's viewpoint.

Or am I taking your words too literally? Please enlighten us...


----------



## Coustfan'01 (Sep 27, 2006)

I don't even really download anymore , but I'm 100% for it . Any artist that says "I'd rather have people not listen to my music than have people listen to it without paying" is an ******* in my book . Plus , looking at my cds right now , which one would I have if I did not listen to songs on the internet? Maybe 10% ? 
And the only people losing money ( maybe ) with dowloading are huge bands , like metallica or celine dion , for the others it's just more xposure , more people at shows buying their t-shirts , etc . 

Major labels are losing money on this , and smallish artist ( at least in quebec) are paid by them to say " stop stealing our music " . Don't get fooled by cash hungry people who don't give a damn about the music .

edit : Haha , I got censored , sorry , I'll watch my language from now on


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2006)

"Are you saying that an artist has no right to insist on being paid for his music?"

I never said that at all.

:zzz:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Coustfan'01 said:


> Any artist that says "I'd rather have people not listen to my music than have people listen to it without paying" is an ******* in my book.


...the same could could be said about people who expect an artist to provide their services free of charge.

or about your employer, if he expects you to work without getting paid...

-dh


----------



## Coustfan'01 (Sep 27, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...the same could could be said about people who expect an artist to provide their services free of charge.
> 
> or about your employer, if he expects you to work without getting paid...
> 
> -dh


Not the same at all , and you know it . I would stop working if I was not being paid , and maybe I would pass some gigs too , but would I stop playing music ? Hell no . Music is not supposed to be a job , it's an art . Or a hobby . It's like saying "You can't see my paintings unless you pay " Yeah , the guy won't give you his paintings , but I have yet to see someone hide it for payer customers .


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Coustfan'01 said:


> Not the same at all , and you know it . I would stop working if I was not being paid , and maybe I would pass some gigs too , but would I stop playing music ? Hell no . Music is not supposed to be a job , it's an art . Or a hobby . It's like saying "You can't see my paintings unless you pay " Yeah , the guy won't give you his paintings , but I have yet to see someone hide it for payer customers .


...i'm not sure this makes any sense. there are many people for whom their art is, indeed, a hobby, or time waster. no question about that. 

but as a blanket statement, that's just ill-informed.

-dh


----------

