Support NeoGAF

[Warm Machine]

Ever since Napster and Kazaa dissapeared or turned to crap my CD buying has dryed up. While those 2 were rocking I was downloading all sorts of stuff and buying the records if I liked it. This was likely because I HAD to have the CD if i wanted to listen to the music at home.

Still, my favorite bands always get a CD purchase out of me. I simply like having the CD and its case and insert available to me.

As far as CD prices go, Vancouver has some of the cheapest CD prices in the world. I've picked up loads of brand new CD releases for $10 cdn. It is rare to see a new record for above $15. For the amount of times I listen to a CD if I like it that $15 is more than worth it.

 

[The Faceless Master]

How do you justify what you do? I'm not here to condemn anyone, but a firend of mine and I had a discussion about this. Being a musician he takes it personal whenever someone mentions downloading albums via torrents or p2p in our circle of friends.
I tell him that many people use it to "sample" an album, then eventually buy a retail copy if they like what they hear. He wasn't buying that, saying it was an excuse to somehow legitimize what is nothing more than piracy/theft.

only music i download via torrent are japanese videogame ost's...
i would buy them, but they'd usually cost more than the game itself to import....

 

[Phoenix]

no, I'm referring to things like the Beatles, where due to corporate lobbying the "rights" to their music are bought and sold like any other commodity long after any publicly derivable benefit can be rationalized away (I mean, the publishing rights are held by Michael Jackson, who gains revenue from their music. How is that fair?).

What you're talking about is a moot point because the artists knew that when they sold their rights that corporate execs would be able to do these things. The fact that corporations lobby to extend these rights is moot with respect to copyright ownership. The fact that it is a corporation is no different than if the beatles were aline and were lobbying themselves to have the copyright extended.

The point of copyright is to encourage innovation by allowing artists to benefit from their works, not for corporate executives to create never-ending and unencroachable revenue streams (which is, for all intents and purposes, the role the current system embraces). I hardly see that as justifiable.

popular misconception. The purpose of copyright has absolutely nothing to do with allowing artists or copyright holders to benefit from their works - the purpose of copyright is to allow artists to protect their works from alteration and theft. The framers of the law had no concept of 'business plan' protection.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

It's obviously more profitable for the artists to hand over their creative license to music labels or they wouldn't be doing it. Artists who cherish their creative control, and cash:units sold ratio, can sign on with an independent record label (becoming increasingly common) or avoid becoming another cog in the corporate machine entirely.

A small percentage of money from record sales is entirely justified. The label will professionally produce, distribute, and market your record. That's professionalism that doesn't come easy - or cheap. Bottom line, singers and songwriters sign on to major record labels because they're more likely to succeed financially, in getting their message across, and sustaining a long, fulfilling career.

 

[Space Age Playboy]

The suits who handle the business end of things and don't create the actual product with their own two hands get a large share of the profit in every industry. It's not like record execs are tyrants with no equal.

 

[Flynn]

You mean the artists never got paid for their work? What is this madness of which you speak.

I think William Gibson once commented that the 20th Century will go down in history of the only period you become a millionaire by playing music.

 

[StrikerObi]

I don't justify what I do, I just do it and accept that.

I'll agree that sampling is true to an extent, but not really over torrents as they are usually for whole albums or multiple albums. I've sampled music and then bought it many times. However, that doesn't really justifty all the times I didn't buy the music and just downloaded the whole album.

Records do tend to be overpriced, but you can usually snag them cheap during their first week of release at Best Buy. I do that a lot. I also buy stuff on iTunes sometimes to save money.

I still download stuff illegally though, but I don't justify it. I tell people I do it and I tell them I know it's wrong but I just don't care.

 

[M3wThr33]

DVD movie: $10-$20
Soundtrack of the same move $10-$15

Stupid logic. CDs shouldn't be more than $5 at best.

 

[sirris]

First of all the bulk of what musicians make, profit wise, is on tours. Thats where the cash is. Unless your a top 100 musician you aren't making squat on album sales. The record companies make 99% of the money there and dictate what people will buy and have done so for far to long. How many countless bands out there that have been turned away by record companies can be heard now online? Thank heavens that the internet has finally toppled their crushing grip on everything music related. And frankly I feel zero remorse for these bands losing money. I bust my hump working for a living to bring home a paycheck. I respect no one who thinks because he spent a week in a recording studio writing a four minute ditty that he should be bathed in cash for the rest of his days. I respect people who put in their forty hours putting in REAL blood, sweat and tears to put food on the table. Those are the people who deserve a richer life.

 

[pjberri]

I haven't bought anything after listening to it on the radio, but almost every CD since I've been downloading has been bought due to having downloaded it, and enjoyed it, first. And I see pretty much every artist that I even remotely like in concert if they come here.

As for the stuff I don't buy, obviously I can't justify that. I would buy it if I had the money though, like someone else said, it's not a case of "do I buy or do I steal".

Independent artists who have a problem with downloading are simply unrealistic though. How the fuck else do they expect people to get into their music?

 

[Boogie9IGN]

I usually only get game soundtracks or hard to find Spanish music

 

[Mr Gump]

I download Tv shows too.

 

[Brian Fellows]

I dont need to jusify it. I'm stealing and I'm ok with that. Rob from the rich and give to me I say. Rob from the poor too if they have anything I want.

 

[Kon Tiki]

How do you justify what you do? I'm not here to condemn anyone, but a firend of mine and I had a discussion about this. Being a musician he takes it personal whenever someone mentions downloading albums via torrents or p2p in our circle of friends.
I tell him that many people use it to "sample" an album, then eventually buy a retail copy if they like what they hear. He wasn't buying that, saying it was an excuse to somehow legitimize what is nothing more than piracy/theft.

If it is MP3, I can see why he would get offended. :lol (lossy joke)
On point, downloading MP3s is no different that using cassete tapes to record the radio years ago. Real artists would not get offended as their message is being heard, unless he is one of those corporate musicians.

Edit: I do not download albums in mp3 format via bittorrent. I download loseless ROIOs, which may or may not be more illegial.

 

[Matt_09]

I use P2P to download individual songs mostly, but I will sometimes download full albums if I want to test it. If i like it I will eventually buy it but if its bollox i'll just delete it.


I dont feel guilt about downloading albums nor do i think its wrong. Many bands have profited from me because I have downloaded and sampled the albums.

 

[Papi]

Cause i'm scurvy. Arrr.
And drunk.