|
I'm not really sure how I managed to come into this thread and actually read all seven pages...
You may not like Raven's point of view (he's not even so much as making an argument as he is stating the simple truth), but no amount of rationalizing your actions alters what is fact. Really, there's a reason why it's called illegal downloading.
Don't like the RIAA? Don't like buying what turns out to be a shitty album? Don't like having a CD that ends up getting scratched and unplayable (God forbid that you actually take care of your property or that you accept responsibility for not doing so)? Fine. But that doesn't somehow negate what illegal downloading is.
...And these... "points" about how much an artist might sell or that something is still selling well enough even if a few people download, so it doesn't hurt them that much - all that kind of thing. It's irrelevant, it's still stealing. Do you think, for example, I'm going to run a record shop and, so long as 90 percent of the people that come through my door either buy something or leave empty handed, I'm just going to let the other 10 percent walk out with whatever they can carry without paying? Not very likely, and no one has the right to expect me to.
Downloading is theft. Deal with it. Yes, there is a difference between the person who downloads because they don't want to pay money for any music and the person who downloads because he wants to pay money only for music he likes, but the difference is in the person. It's still theft and both are guilty of it. (BTW, a small point: It isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's theft of another person's work. That it's theft is why it's (understandably) illegal) ...Really, there seems to be a couple of camps here where one is stating black and white facts about what is legal and what isn't, and the other is attempting to rationalize an illegal action. Why anyone tries to turn that into some kind of argument is pretty mind blowing (Do people need validation that badly?). There really isn't an argument to be had, no matter how hard you try at it.
That all said, if you do download, you are taking a kind of risk and you should understand that risk (as well as copyright laws) and accept it if you're going to continue to download. Depending on your particular actions or habits, the risk of negative consequences might not be as high for you as it might be for someone else.
However... In all fairness, the record companies and musicians are not completely innocent either and some people are trying to point that out (and unfortunately, also ballooning it into something that's out of context)...
Zad made a point about "the experience" and that's an interesting point of view that's even valid to an extent. But buying an album isn't like going to the movies or tuning into a series premier on TV. An album is meant to last, just like a VHS or DVD or a book. Going to see a movie or, listening to the radio, going to a concert, or going to a book signing or reading - those are experiences. The very manufacturing of an album is done so because it's intended for permanent accessibility and repeated use. Is it really just a listening experience in the way you mean it? I would say no, even though there is an element of it being an experience too.
Anyway... I can go into a bookstore and sit down with a book for a few minutes. I can go back a few days later and sit back down with that same book and check it over again. I can go see a movie in the theater or rent it from a video store or online (and have the experience as well as direct knowledge of what the more permanent form will contain). In the end, I can choose to buy the book or the DVD if I want to. And I can make impulse purchases too, and with that, I accept the risk that I might not like it as much as I'd wished. I think options with music are a little more limited, too limited for me really. You know, even reviews (as helpful and accurate as they are sometimes) don't really cut it for music the way that they can for other products, even books or movies. Shit, I can even look at a painting before I decide whether or not I buy it. Don't you think it'd be rather absurd for artists to sell their paintings to people without them getting to see them first? Do you actually think ripping a small corner off of the brown paper covering or reading someone else's opinion of it is a reasonable compromise?
I'll be honest and say that I would rent CD's (or some form of albums) as a way to check them out. Would most people want to do that? I don't know, but probably not I guess. It really irks me that an album is one of those things you buy to keep but can't really try out first or get your money back from (not to mention just how many times I've wound up with a cracked or broken case). Yeah, there's Myspace, but one or two songs doesn't really cut it for me and that's not to mention the frequently terrible sound quality. Same thing with samples on Amazon or wherever - 30 seconds, even from every song, doesn't really cut it. The kinds of music I generally like and my approach to listening to music in general tends to make finding stuff I want and buying it a difficult process. That anyone would expect me to buy a product without getting to try it out or return it is just mind boggling. That a so-called artist would even consider (or feel the need to consider) selling themselves to such a person/business is equally disturbing.
The very same principle that governs our understanding of why stealing music is stealing should also translate into our understanding of what our money is worth to us. Who in their right mind wants to spend money on something they don't want or like or use (Oddly enough, many people do it all the time)? What kind of business expects them to?
A lot of people, including the record industry and musicians themselves at times, seem to have forgotten the basic principles that make money something of value and something that works (for both the seller and the buyer). I think that's a shame. And I think that's somewhat reflected, in particular, with the RIAA and their decision to whine to the government to baby them along instead of finding better ways to do their business and survive on their own. Times change and sometimes business practices (and expectations) have to change with them, but there's still a consistent market for their product (music), even bad product, even recycled bad product. How many other industries have that luxury?
Last edited by Tyrion on Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
I feel so schooled. You definitely have proven something there. 
