Published on 12, July, 2020
Hi,
I just thought I would start this discussion to see what people think about illegal downloads....
I can honestly say I have never done it. Mainly for the fear of downloading a virus. From a moral perspective I am undecided.
I love music and love to collect CD's and records. If someone was never ever going to hear a beautiful peice of music in their life because they could not afford it would it be OK for them to download it illegaly? If they could never create something because they did not have some expensive software and therefore never fulfill there full potential would it be OK to illegall download the software? However where do you draw the line? Do you then just help yourself to someones possesions? Also what if the owner (software designer or artist) is really struggling to make a living? Should that influence your decision to download?
I am not a big fan of the consumer economy and culture but thats maybe another topic.
I use open source software and creative commons licences. I listen to new music legally on sites like jamendo, soundcloud etc and pay subs to watch TV or read books. I think downloading illegally is about poor business and service models which have improved in some ways like usability and being available simultaneously in different marketing zones but not in others - if I mentally tot up media and cloud service subs and realised I'm paying at least £35 a month in bits and pieces which I'm about to cull (Netflix, now, audible, guardian, kindle) - it's a bit much for media you'll mostly never own and frequently stuff just disappears - and it's always the tip of the iceberg of what I want to have access to.
As more stuff goes behind paywalls I'm starting to think about just not bothering - I'm going back to buying old stuff on CD and dvd and ripping them onto my laptop so I can conveniently cast them.
It's getting insanely expensive and I bet indie artists or indie producers mostly don't get to see much of it. Media industries are interested in keeping an exploitative and restrictive profit model not in facilitating art or artists. Netflix used to have stuff from all over the place but now competition over content means you'd need several subs to see the range. Price of e-books makes your eyes water.
Without a job - as so many autistic people are - you're paywalled out of mainstream culture. If piracy is wrong, so is rampant profiteering. Universities pay billions every year to elsevier but writers get nothing. Financiers speculate on contemporary art for billions whilst the average artist lives on £8k a year and most cultural producers are in what's called the "precariat". Indie cloud based services find it hard to compete against monolithic global monopolies. The whole thing needs an overhaul and not sanctimonious self interest from corporate producers and government crackdowns.
If you get an email like the current request to click on somewhere you know nothing about You must treat it as scam put it into your spam go to the upper right an the three dots and clicck on not to receive from this sender., however there is a current one to down load films you can only complain to a moderator on NAS,
If you like music youtube allows playlist and favorites, why would you buy the track when you can legally watch video for free.
If adverts annoy you there are advert blockers that allow legal song or video viewing.
[quote] Also I would really not want to play music live. I am pretty sure their are others on this forum who think the same.
[\quote]
Absolutely!!
If I was a musician I couldn't play live, and if I wanted to earn a living I accept that some material would have to be given away so people would know what they are getting, but more tracks would have to be paid for but I would try and keep it to a small amount.
I tried writing phone software, it was free for the lower levels of difficulty and less than a dollar for additional levels, but the window for which it is a "new release" was so short only 20 people downloaded the free version. To find it in the marketplace after the first week it was necessary to know its name. I didn't have the resources to make a nice little animation for youtube. I cannot do it anymore because the latest release of developer software requires equipment to be ugraded - they expect you to upgrade every two years. Is music also a crowded marketplace?
What about the dissemination of recorded television programmes that are not available on video or DVD and may not be broadcast again? This mainly applies to old documentaries and news programmes but entertainment material is not always immune.
This is a situation where copyright law falters. It is officially illegal to disseminate recorded television programmes even if no charge is made to the customer, but you also have balance the law with availability of material for research purposes and preservation. It is also possible that the original has been lost or destroyed by the producer or broadcaster and off air recordings are the only versions which still survive.
The way I see things is that dissemination of such video material is a victimless crime, and if the copyright holder is unhappy, then it would be more intelligent to make an official version available to buy for a reasonable price than to sue those who are breaking the law.
You could always argue "comply with the law and go without" but this could seriously impact research and lead to certain video material being lost for good.
I personally am regularly "stolen from".. im a tattoo artist and have drawn a number of flash sheets/designs... and when i started i copyrighted everything and sold ... but it didnt stop anything so now Im under the impression of if people want my drawing all they have to do is ask me and they are welcome to use what ever they wish...
I didnt start drawing to get rich... i started because i loved drawing and i loved showing people my art... I think 99% of musicians feel the same...
** also as somebody above stated... a friend of mine is in the music business... drum and base etc.... and he for years went mental at people illegally downloading his stuff... that is untill i pointed out and asked him how me made his music... with illegally downloaded software... lol
and ill be honest me personally... i use a downloaded copy of photoshop... untill they release a personal licence that doesnt cost a bomb ill continue to use one.... iv downloaded music illegally before... if i like what i hear i purchase if i dont iv not lost anything and its deleted.. i dont download movies or anything like that... i go cinema or use my netflix.. on 2nd thoughts why dont they do a netflix style thing for music.. you pay a monthly fee and listen to a massive libary of music to stream or download....
Goatworshiper said:I can imagine. Visual Studio would probably be a very expensive package too because of it's potential to earn you a lot of money in comercial developments? I used it for a uni project using C++, complete headfart.
I can imagine. Visual Studio would probably be a very expensive package too because of it's potential to earn you a lot of money in comercial developments? I used it for a uni project using C++, complete headfart.
Yeah, the cheapest, non-free, edition (which whilst less limited than the free edition, is quite limited in what you can do with it) of the latest version costs the bargain price of £502, or if you want the all-singing all-dancing Ultimate edition (which includes a Subscription to MSDN (and is the only way to get it)) it'll cost you £13,370 for a new subscription, or £4272 to renew an existing subscription (and you have to renew every year) - oh and that's a one user license!
Jon said:Scorpion, are you involved in web/graphic design at all? Gimp looks interesting. Do you know of an OK freeware web design program? (not that I need to use one at the mo, or set myself the task of learning one).
My 'trade', as it were, is Software Engineering, so, whilst I have dabbled in web-development a little, I'm not a web or graphic designer, and I'm not aware of a good (or even OK) freeware web design program.
Scorpion0x17 said:I work with musicians and they all moan about people stealing music whilst at the same time being guilty of stealing recording software They don't like it when I point it out.
I work with musicians and they all moan about people stealing music whilst at the same time being guilty of stealing recording software They don't like it when I point it out.
This happens in the software industry too.
Or at least it used to before Microsoft made the 'Express' versions of their Visual Studio development environments, which are free to download and use.
I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of digital artists start out with illegally downloaded copies of PhotoShop (depite the availability of free alternatives such as GIMP), or web-designers and DreamWeaver, too.
[/quote]
Goatworshiper said:I work with musicians and they all moan about people stealing music whilst at the same time being guilty of stealing recording software They don't like it when I point it out.
...good point...
Scorpion, are do are you involved in web/graphic design at all? Gimp looks interesting. Do you know of an OK freeware web design program? (not that I need to use one at the mo, or set myself the task of learning one).
My view only on music tho. Music is a social activity in most parts of the world, only in America, Western Europe and Australia is it a commercial activity. I think it's fine to download. However if you enjoy what your listening too, buy the product.
I see value in physical artefacts and I'm more than willing to pay for them. I wouldnt pay 1p for a music download tho.
I got a free sampler cd from a label and enjoyed some of the tracks and purchased 6 albums. I've illegally downloaded some stuff enjoyed it and purchased it. But I've also downloaded some stuff and been hugely relieved that I didn't part with money.
As I guitarist I am happy for people to listen, even if I am not paid for it.
I used to play regularly in church and none of the musicians ever asked for payment,
some probably hoped they could make a living some day but it wasnt why they made music or performed in public.
My guess the Stones and Paul McCartney dont really need the money either.
I really dont buy the record company argument that we need to pay every time we listen to music or music will die, thats like the bankers saying we need to pay the bankers billions or we wont have the best people. It just doesnt follow.
To me music has always been free, its only recently copyright law has tried to criminalise listening to music, and its going too far. We are allowing copyrighting genes, squares with round corners, look and feel, animals and plants, its just too much.
It reminds me of the land grabs of the days of empire and the acts of enclosure, to me its just greedy people grabbing what shouldnt be owned by anyone just because they can make money.
zone_tripper said:Theft is theft, no matter what you are stealing; medical drugs or music downloaded illegally. Both are illegal acts, albeit through different acts of legislation. And it is an unrealistic comparison to compare downloading music illegally with stealing drugs for a genuine medical emergency. If someone stole some drugs because a family member was seriously ill, the courts would probably treat them sympathetically and give them a more lenient sentence. However, considering the NHS offers prescription (subsidised medication) and free of charge to those on state benefits and considering the NHS provides free healthcare, I very much doubt anyone has a genuine reason for stealing medication. This is just another lame attempt to morally justify the illegal downloading of somebody else's work, without paying them for it.
Theft is theft, no matter what you are stealing; medical drugs or music downloaded illegally. Both are illegal acts, albeit through different acts of legislation.
And it is an unrealistic comparison to compare downloading music illegally with stealing drugs for a genuine medical emergency. If someone stole some drugs because a family member was seriously ill, the courts would probably treat them sympathetically and give them a more lenient sentence. However, considering the NHS offers prescription (subsidised medication) and free of charge to those on state benefits and considering the NHS provides free healthcare, I very much doubt anyone has a genuine reason for stealing medication.
This is just another lame attempt to morally justify the illegal downloading of somebody else's work, without paying them for it.
Hi Zone_tripper,
I just want to make clear that I am not trying to convince you or anyone that illegal downloads are valid. I have never done it. I am really not trying to justify it. I do find the scenario intersting though and am just trying to form an informed opinion. I am really intersted in yours and everyone elses opinion.
The 'life saving drugs scenario' wasn't meant to be a comparison with downloading music illegallly. I was just trying to establish where people draw the 'moral line'. It is only a hypothetical scenario. If i tried to make it 'real' I would have to research the global situation considering peoples access to medication, private/nationalised healthcare, incomes, disabilities and goodness knows what else.
I wonder if the decission made by some poople when obtaining music is either:
Obviously there are other choices:
I wonder what some Music artists would prefer if someone only considered options a. or b. ? It would be best to get the opinion from a music artist as I am unsure myself. People listening to music, playing to their friends, following you on FB all creates hype and gives you exposure however the music was obtained. With alot of hype and coverage advertisers/sponsors are going to be interested in you. I wouldn't exactly say I was a fan of adverts though. I do like to disect them though to see what they are trying to achieve or judge how succesful they might be. Some seem very naive, some funny, some offensive and some just stupid. they are all trying to manipulate though......Ok I am going well off the subject.
...and again zone_tripper, I really am not trying to justify downloading music illegaly.
Jon said:Thanks for the post Zone_tripper. I agree it is 'stealing' nut what is interesting is where people draw the 'moral line'. I guess the risk of getting caught plays a part. I think the idea of stealing something 'physical' as opposed to 'virtual' (for want of a better word) influences people too. Also the fact that 'everyone else is doing it'.My mum used to soak an envelope to re-use the postage stamp if it wasn't franked. I am pretty sure she did not see it as theft and would be horrified at the idea of stealing.Another hypothetical moral question:If a friend or member of your family was dying and you had no way to afford the drugs to save them, would you be prepared to steal them? (In addition the drugs are easy to take, made cheaply and sold with a hugh mark up price).This is a totally made up scenario.
Thanks for the post Zone_tripper. I agree it is 'stealing' nut what is interesting is where people draw the 'moral line'. I guess the risk of getting caught plays a part. I think the idea of stealing something 'physical' as opposed to 'virtual' (for want of a better word) influences people too. Also the fact that 'everyone else is doing it'.
My mum used to soak an envelope to re-use the postage stamp if it wasn't franked. I am pretty sure she did not see it as theft and would be horrified at the idea of stealing.
Another hypothetical moral question:
If a friend or member of your family was dying and you had no way to afford the drugs to save them, would you be prepared to steal them? (In addition the drugs are easy to take, made cheaply and sold with a hugh mark up price).
This is a totally made up scenario.
Jon said:Hi,I just thought I would start this discussion to see what people think about illegal downloads....I can honestly say I have never done it. Mainly for the fear of downloading a virus. From a moral perspective I am undecided.I love music and love to collect CD's and records. If someone was never ever going to hear a beautiful peice of music in their life because they could not afford it would it be OK for them to download it illegaly? If they could never create something because they did not have some expensive software and therefore never fulfill there full potential would it be OK to illegall download the software? However where do you draw the line? Do you then just help yourself to someones possesions? Also what if the owner (software designer or artist) is really struggling to make a living? Should that influence your decision to download?I am not a big fan of the consumer economy and culture but thats maybe another topic.
No, it is not ok to download illegally. It is a breach of copyright law, as well as being the digital equivalent of going into HMV and stealing CDs; it is digital shoplifting.
I have been diagnosed with ASD in the summer of 2011 (aged 34), but I go out and work to be able to buy CDs and digital music, legally. And for the five years when I was a student, I could hardly afford to buy anything and had to go without; I did NOT go into shops and steal CDs, LPs and/or cassettes (in the pre-digital era, before the World Wide Web took off). I had to learn to go without.
Unfortunately, some of the youth of today seem to think everything should be free, usually whilst spouting nonsense about "socialism" and/or "communism", but at the same time are not prepared to produce anything themselves and share with others. They expect others to slave over making music, films, TV programmes, books, etc, for no financial recompense, but are not prepared to do so themselves!
(Please excuse my moaning! Fast approaching middle age, me, and very cynical!)
I have not finished reading this might be of interest.....
www.littlewhiteearbuds.com/.../
Thanks for the info. I am really finding this discussion interesting. Strategies for making a living from music are changing as we speak and through inovation I beleive that it may be possible for a music artist to make money and for the fan/consumer to be happy.
NAS21954 said:I don't think there is an excuse not to perform live shows now really, it is kind of expected of you as an artist.
I don't think there is an excuse not to perform live shows now really, it is kind of expected of you as an artist.
I take your point. But for every rule there is always another. I don't really like seeing music live and prefer to listen to music at home. Also I would really not want to play music live. I am pretty sure their are others on this forum who think the same. Playing live is a very established idea. Recorded music changed that idea somewhat and insome cases replaced the live musician. The DJ can still have the appeal and status of a live performer. Computer based music artists use technology to make their music playable live and turn it into more of a show with improvisation that is equal to 'live' musicians. The way I see it is that everything is changing and in the future we will look back in retrospect and more easily be able to identfy these changes.
From what I can undersatnd about the early Dubstep scene it was based around dubplates and wasn't commercialy available. Money was made at the events. It kept it underground and I am sure the financial rewards were not great but it also meant the artists kept hold of their material. Exposure on RinseFM etc helped add to the whole underground desirabilty of the product. I think some consumers like to find that rare track, to be part of a 'select scene' or get their first on owning a sound. This is definately something I am very intersted in. Not as a marketing gimmick but actually something that is valid and real that could benifit both artist and listener.
.....with downloadiing there is also the risk of getting caught (however minimal):
torrentfreak.com/.../
What do you think about how a music artist should make a living nowadays?
How would you know if you could trust one site over another? I would imagine all filesharing sites would seem unfamiliar to me.