Almost free online music?

[shadow29]

A friend told me about this site:

www.allofmp3.com (http://www.allofmp3.com)

He said it costs like 2 cents per megabyte (or something like that).

Anyone know anything about this site?

[Popinjay]

It works and they don't rip you off

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
It works and they don't rip you off

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming they do rip off the artists though?

[Corey]

I would think a legal website would loudly procliam itself as legal. If you read the fine print it cites some Russian law about internet music. Thus, I highly doubt it's legality and I'll stick with my free, knowningly illegal, methods of getting my music.

[bear187]

People who pay for music are either rich or stupid. Probably both.

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
People who pay for music are either rich or stupid. Probably both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong and totally ignorant. I am poor and intelligent, but I have moral issues with stealing music.

RT

[siccjay]

[ QUOTE ]
People who pay for music are either rich or stupid. Probably both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I support artists that I like.

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who pay for music are either rich or stupid. Probably both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I support artists that I like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

So is this site legal or not?

[bear187]

Oh sorry. That's my opinion. I am highly immoral though, so take it as you will... I'd kill a baby for free music.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I support artists that I like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should go to their concerts. They make jack [censored] off of their records.

If you buy music, do it because of moral/legal issues. Which I might add are worth paying attention to.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
They make jack [censored] off of their records.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is absolutely untrue for most artists. besides, artists that don't make much off their records choose to take that route.

I think musicians should get paid for what they do.

--turnipmonster

[turnipmonster]

no it's not legal and they pay the artists nothing.

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh sorry. That's my opinion. I am highly immoral though, so take it as you will...

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you steal from record stores if you wouldn't get caught?

People that think downloading music without the artists and/or record companies consent isn't stealing should give there head a shake.

RT

[lighterjobs]

if they don't sell albums they can't afford to go out on the road because their label will drop them. how much music is a megabyte anyway? like 30 sec of a song?

[bear187]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh sorry. That's my opinion. I am highly immoral though, so take it as you will...

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you steal from record stores if you wouldn't get caught?

People that think downloading music without the artists and/or record companies consent isn't stealing should give there head a shake.

RT

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I steal whatever I can if I can. I'm one sick individual @_@ http://www.ispub.com/xml/journals/ijd/vol1n1/harlequin-fig2.jpg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
this is absolutely untrue for most artists. besides, artists that don't make much off their records choose to take that route.


[/ QUOTE ]

The artist created the product, recorded it and the finished product is judged by the public on the quality of the music. Yet they get the smallest piece of the pie, with the record labels and distributors usually taking about 85% of the income.

http://www.azoz.com/news2/riaa02.html

[ QUOTE ]
I think musicians should get paid for what they do.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say otherwise?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]


Would you steal from record stores if you wouldn't get caught?

People that think downloading music without the artists and/or record companies consent isn't stealing should give there head a shake.

RT

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a huge noob. First, this analogy is retarded. Steal a CD and you're not only stealing the music, but the record company had to spend $0.50 or so to physically create the thing, and the record store probably spent $5 on it.

You're not stealing a physical product when you d/l.

Secondly, yes, I believe artists should be compensated for their work.

What I don't believe is that there needs to be a huge infrastructure (record labels) to bring us music anymore.

Record companies are the ones making millions for an obsolete service.

The answer?

Create a better subscription service. iTunes is way too expensive.

The labels could have set something similar up, sat back and raked in the dough for years while cutting their production costs significantly, but they're a bunch of crusty dinosaurs that are holding on so tight they're going to choke themselves to death.

[MicroBob]

I qualify as stupid because I tried to figure out how to download music and didn't succeed.
I gave up reasonably quickly though out of frustration.

[bear187]

www.limewire.com (http://www.limewire.com) there ya go

[Michael Davis]

"You're not stealing a physical product when you d/l."

Yes, you are. I don't see how the amount of money it costs to produce something has anything to do with whether or not one is stealing. Is it okay to steal things that are cheap but not those that are expensive?

Even if it's not a physical product, what does that matter? And it IS a physical product.

Also, what does being a "noob" have to do with one's argument?

-Michael

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Would you steal from record stores if you wouldn't get caught?

People that think downloading music without the artists and/or record companies consent isn't stealing should give there head a shake.

RT

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a huge noob. First, this analogy is retarded. Steal a CD and you're not only stealing the music, but the record company had to spend $0.50 or so to physically create the thing, and the record store probably spent $5 on it.

You're not stealing a physical product when you d/l.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter whether you're stealing a physical product or not, you're still stealing. By your analogy skipping out on a cab fare would be okay?

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, yes, I believe artists should be compensated for their work.

What I don't believe is that there needs to be a huge infrastructure (record labels) to bring us music anymore.

Record companies are the ones making millions for an obsolete service.

The answer?

Create a better subscription service. iTunes is way too expensive.

The labels could have set something similar up, sat back and raked in the dough for years while cutting their production costs significantly, but they're a bunch of crusty dinosaurs that are holding on so tight they're going to choke themselves to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this part of your post but that doesn't make stealing okay.

RT

[Sweaburg]

Beat me to it...
I chose to ignore the noob comment on the basis that it was totally irrelevant.

RT

[BusterStacks]

As long as I am stealing vastly more from record companies than the actual artist, then I am fine with it.

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as I am stealing vastly more from record companies than the actual artist, then I am fine with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it okay to steal from record companies?

[bear187]

Because its the internet.

[BusterStacks]

Because they stole from us. Did you forget the price fixing lawsuits? If so, here is one:

CNET news story (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-960183.html?part=msnbc-cnet&type=pt%E2%88%82=msnbc&tag=alert&form=feed&su bj=cnetnews)

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
"You're not stealing a physical product when you d/l."

Yes, you are. I don't see how the amount of money it costs to produce something has anything to do with whether or not one is stealing. Is it okay to steal things that are cheap but not those that are expensive?

Even if it's not a physical product, what does that matter? And it IS a physical product.

Also, what does being a "noob" have to do with one's argument?

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I like to call people noobs.
2) How can you possibly describe a song as a physical product?
3) I understand the "free ride" problem in economic theory. And I do believe it applies here.

However, record companies have been screwing consumers for decades. They no longer serve a purpose in their current form; they should disappear or adapt.

One thing I think everyone needs to keep in mind is that even with all the illegal downloading going on, record companies still make a ridiculous amount of money just for "packaging" the artists' music.

Furthermore, popular artists are in no way hurting for cash (even after the record companies take their huge chunk out of the artist's earnings).

A flat-rate subscription service that entitles the downloader to unlimited property rights, and gives the larger % of the pie to the artist is the answer, IMO.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether you're stealing a physical product or not, you're still stealing. By your analogy skipping out on a cab fare would be okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wear and tear on the cab, gas, cabbie's time, etc...

Making a digital copy of something takes nothing away from someone else.

[BusterStacks]

Also the nice thing about downloading free music is that it distributes the pain in the best possible way. The most popular music gets pirated the most, thus taking money from those who can best afford it.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether you're stealing a physical product or not, you're still stealing. By your analogy skipping out on a cab fare would be okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wear and tear on the cab, gas, cabbie's time, etc...

Making a digital copy of something takes nothing away from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Especially if you wouldn't have bought it anyway, which is a point a lot of people forget. Also by the rationale in this thread, it is stealing to make a copy of a tape for someone... or record a song off the radio...

[GuyOnTilt]

As long as I am stealing vastly more from record companies than the actual artist, then I am fine with it.

I understand that d/l'ing music for free is the easy way to go and so you (collectively, not personally) would want to try to justify it any way you can, but this is a really bad justification. You're fine w/stealing from the artist, just so long as you're also stealing from someone else? That makes no sense. So it's okay to pickpocket an average Joe, just so long as the same day you also make sure to pickpocket a stock broker, right? As long as you make sure to steal "vastly more" from the stock broker than the average guy then it's okay. Also, what makes stealing from a large entity is okay, but stealing from a person wrong? Would you not feel bad breaking into and robbing from a 7000 sq ft house, whereas robbing a 1500 sq ft house would be below you?

GoT

[Michael Davis]

The fact that record companies screw everyone is not a justification for stealing. Capitalism sucks sometimes.

The songs are physical products. Do they just play from thin air?

-Michael

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they stole from us. Did you forget the price fixing lawsuits? If so, here is one:

CNET news story (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-960183.html?part=msnbc-cnet&type=pt%E2%88%82=msnbc&tag=alert&form=feed&su bj=cnetnews)

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly didn't know about this but it doesn't change my opinion. Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc. I can't imagine how they hope to distribute 67 mil amongst consumers though.

[BusterStacks]

Guy, I made this statement knowing full well it would provoke this kind of response. The short answer is yes, I feel less bad for stealing from someone who can afford it. The long answer is that I have many ways to justify stealing music, not the least of which is having paid prices that were later deemed illegal.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I am no advocate for stealing. I have been stolen from and it sucks. Also, aside from music I have never stolen anything in my life. My stance is simply that I do not have a moral issue with this particular form of stealing.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Technically you are stealing a physical product. Its a copywrited piece of work, and IIRC Intellectual Property laws prohibit the transfer of digital copies of copywrited work.

[GuyOnTilt]

Furthermore, popular artists are in no way hurting for cash (even after the record companies take their huge chunk out of the artist's earnings).

Why should this matter at all?

GoT

[BusterStacks]

GoT: Do you have a problem with me downloading a CD I would have never purchased? Either way, nobody is getting my money, yet I will still gain by listening to the music.

[Sweaburg]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: don't get me wrong, I am no advocate for stealing. I have been stolen from and it sucks. Also, aside from music I have never stolen anything in my life. My stance is simply that I do not have a moral issue with this particular form of stealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know when to draw the line between okay stealing and not okay stealing? That is why moral relativism sucks.

[BusterStacks]

Obviously I evaluate each situation. I don't see why moral relativism sucks any more than living by all-encompassing rules.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that record companies screw everyone is not a justification for stealing. Capitalism sucks sometimes.

The songs are physical products. Do they just play from thin air?

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they play from my speakers. Which vibrate the air in such a manner as to create sound.

Furthermore, I didn't say I thought downloading wasn't stealing.

I simply went out of my way to prove that the analogy that compares downloading to shoplifting CDs is completely stupid. This analogy is one of my biggest pet peeves.

There are a lot of gray areas. Downloading may be wrong, but it's a lot less wrong than stealing CDs from a store.

Here's a better analogy, IMO.

Downloading music is like building your own XM Radio receiver. Subscribing to XM Radio costs money, so it's wrong for you to get it for free when others pay. HOWEVER! It's not like it costs XM Radio more to broadcast to you specifically. You're just getting a free ride which, ultimately, costs everyone.

It's LESS wrong than shoplifting an XM Radio receiver.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, popular artists are in no way hurting for cash (even after the record companies take their huge chunk out of the artist's earnings).

Why should this matter at all?

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters because people act like downloaders are taking the bread out of their kids' mouths.

[GuyOnTilt]

GoT: Do you have a problem with me downloading a CD I would have never purchased? Either way, nobody is getting my money, yet I will still gain by listening to the music.

Let me preface by saying that I never put anyone down or tell them they're a bad person for d/l'ing music. I've made a moral choice to pay for all the music I own and listen to, and if the subject ever comes up with friends or whomever, I give my side to it and will point out flaws in their logic. It's currently against the law, yes, but I purposefully drive 90 mph all the time so who am I to judge anybody for that reason. If you don't have a moral dilemna stealing in certain situations (or all situations) then that's your perogative, and I have no delusions that everybody else's set of morals should match mine.

GoT

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this part of your post but that doesn't make stealing okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, then I retract my statment that you're a huge noob.

However, I still think your initial analogy is terrible. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

It matters because people act like downloaders are taking the bread out of their kids' mouths.

I still don't see how it matters. Is stealing only wrong if you're stealing someone's necessities? Would stealing a stanger's $1,000 Gucci handbag be okay in your opinion while stealing your neighbor's $1,000 bedset be wrong? Do you see theft for personal gain justifiable just so long as the victim can afford it in your eyes?

GoT

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]

I simply went out of my way to prove that the analogy that compares downloading to shoplifting CDs is completely stupid. This analogy is one of my biggest pet peeves.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point out where you 'proved' this analogy was wrong?

If you understand these economics so much... have you ever heard of the term FIXED COSTS. You think if a product has 0 variable costs (digital media), it is not a physical product. Costs went into making the song, even if the marginal cost to produce one more is zero.

Also, digital media is in fact physical, it is small, but physical. Do you think it takes up no mass in our universe? Wrong. You are adjusting definitions of stealing to try to disprove the analogy, but in fact the analogy is perfect.

[BusterStacks]

So we agree that there are certain laws that we are willing to break based on the benefits we would receive. Do you not consider the consequences of significant speeding to be a moral issue? If you do, then we are in the same boat here.

[BusterStacks]

No, the analogy really is terrible because it implies greater costs than what are actually incurred. The net loss of physically stealing a CD is many times greater than what ultimately amounts to not purchasing it.

[Michael Davis]

Stealing CDs is fine because they cost less than sofas.

-Michael

[GuyOnTilt]

So we agree that there are certain laws that we are willing to break based on the benefits we would receive. Do you not consider the consequences of significant speeding to be a moral issue? If you do, then we are in the same boat here.

Isn't that what I just said? I understand why the vast majority of people I know d/l music for free and do everything they can to try to justify it. It's easy and it's free! Why wouldn't they want to do it? I get that. The problem is most of their reasoning and how they have mentally justified it to themselves is bogus. They are (in my opinion) just trying to find anything even remotely justifiable to grab onto so they can feel okay continuing to steal and don't really believe what they're doing is right. It's just easier. I very seriously don't have a moral issue with speeding. I've thought it through and have had discussions about it and I'm a very logical person when it comes to debating and so on, and I really don't have a moral issue with it. Stealing I do. It'd be easy for me to take a lot of the statements in this thread that are being used to justify stealing music and hold onto them and go on stealing music, but I don't because I don't truly believe them. They're full of holes and flawed logic. If I truly did feel stealing music was perfectly fine morally, I almost certainly would do it.

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

...but in fact the analogy is perfect.

Obviously I'm against stealing music, but to say that analogy is perfect is just wrong. Don't combat flawed logic with more flawed logic.

GoT

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the analogy really is terrible because it implies greater costs than what are actually incurred. The net loss of physically stealing a CD is many times greater than what ultimately amounts to not purchasing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this. It is certainly not true from the variable costs to make 1 more. You got to understand marginal costs.

The argument would be valid if you assume that those who are stealing in store are much more likely to 'buy' the product if they couldnt readily steal, which I also think is untrue. I think those stealing in stores are doing so because they have no money.

[Michael Davis]

" I think those stealing in stores are doing so because they have no money."

This is definitely wrong.

-Michael

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
" I think those stealing in stores are doing so because they have no money."

This is definitely wrong.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that wrong? I worked in Target when I was 16-17 in the electronics department / music section. EVERYONE we caught stealing via seeing or on camera was some kid, most likely because they could not afford the 15 bucks for the CD. I think this is pretty reasonable logic...

[Michael Davis]

Only if Ashley Judd is broke.

-Michael

[GuyOnTilt]

How is that wrong? I worked in Target when I was 16-17 in the electronics department / music section. EVERYONE we caught stealing via seeing or on camera was some kid, most likely because they could not afford the 15 bucks for the CD. I think this is pretty reasonable logic...

That's not the most logical reason why "everyone" caught stealing from electronics was a kid. C'mon.

GoT

[pshreck]

No, your right. I'm sure they were perfectly capable of buying these products, but risked stealing anyways? Doubt it. You guys certainly know how to get off track though, Ill give ya that.

[Michael Davis]

I grew up in a relatively wealthy suburb and had plenty of friends who stole stuff from stores.

-Michael

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
EVERYONE we caught stealing via seeing or on camera was some kid, most likely because they could not afford the 15 bucks for the CD. I think this is pretty reasonable logic...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, the reasonable logic behind making blanket statements about entire groups of people based on an extremely small sample size. Nice hand, sir.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
I grew up in a relatively wealthy suburb and had plenty of friends who stole stuff from stores.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, bud, I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons for stealing, but I think it's reasonable to think that most of the kids stealing are doing so because they don't have enough money.

Were your friends getting a ton of money from their parents then still going out and stealing? Just because you were in a wealthy neighborhood doesnt mean these kids all have a bunch of money to spend.

[GuyOnTilt]

No, your right. I'm sure they were perfectly capable of buying these products, but risked stealing anyways? Doubt it.

Dude, people with money steal all the time. You're wrong here. I went to a private high school with plenty of money and kids would make a serious effort to steal from the Coke machine. You think they couldn't afford a dollar for a beverage? Michael Davis has already given two other examples. You're wrong on this one.

You guys certainly know how to get off track though, Ill give ya that.

Stop making fallacious arguments and we wouldn't have to.

GoT

[pshreck]

Yeah, thanks for all the examples. You both grew up rich, and know rich people who stole. I already said, I was generalizing and not saying that all stealers dont have money, just most. If you guys seem to think that rich kids make up a large portion of those people stealing, then lets just agree to disagree, because I dont know how to explain it any further.

[bear187]

I make money and usually get money from my parents when I ask for it. I still steal things out of convienience and for fun.

[GuyOnTilt]

You both grew up rich

This is very far from the truth. It's becoming more and more obvious you aren't capable of objective and logical discussion or thought.

I was generalizing and not saying that all stealers dont have money, just most.

You started throwing in caveats after it became obvious you were wrong, but your first few statements were definitely not referring to "most".

If you guys seem to think that rich kids make up a large portion of those people stealing, then lets just agree to disagree

Again, it's now very obvious you don't know how to logically debate. None of us said anything like this at all. I think it's in the anti-stealing side's best interest if you just stopped posting in this thread. Both Michael and I are on the same side of that issue as you, yet we've both taken several posts to tell you how illogical you're being. Doesn't that say something to you?

GoT

[turnipmonster]

you are doing exactly that. it's money out of the artist's pocket, justify it any way you want. I say this as someone who's on numerous records and has worked as a professional musician for many, many years. it's money out of my pocket.

[turnipmonster]

again, artist's contracts with their labels and distributers are up to them, and an agreement between two parties. most artists on major labels get a small % of the sale (although they get composer's royalties if they wrote the song) because they choose it.

artists that are on smaller indie labels get a much larger % of the cd price.

I fail to see why the artist's contract with their label should have anything to do with whether or not someone decides to steal music, however.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]

If you guys seem to think that rich kids make up a large portion of those people stealing, then lets just agree to disagree

Again, it's now very obvious you don't know how to logically debate.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for logically criticizing my abilities to debate, which is fine, but let's stick to the issue. What problem do you have with the statement that I think those who are stealing CD's are doing it because they don't have money. Is your whole argument based on the fact that in my original argument, you thought I intended 'all' and not 'most'? Now who is the one who can't logically debate here man? These upper-class towns and kids make up a very small percentage of the population as opposed to those who don't freely have money to buy CDs, and that argument is not 'fallacious'. I am sorry I generalized you as rich if this is untrue, you simply knew rich people I guess? Did you really need for me to point out that my opinion was generalizing? Or are you just nitpicking?

EDIT: by the way, my use of the word 'rich' in this post means upper middle class and higher. I honestly don't know if you would give me crap on that too.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Downloading music is like building your own XM Radio receiver. Subscribing to XM Radio costs money, so it's wrong for you to get it for free when others pay. HOWEVER! It's not like it costs XM Radio more to broadcast to you specifically. You're just getting a free ride which, ultimately, costs everyone.

It's LESS wrong than shoplifting an XM Radio receiver

[/ QUOTE ]


I would have no problem if I somehow started getting XM radio for free....but I wouldn't go out of my way to build a receiver for it (partly because I suck at electronics and would get frustrated and annoyed).


When I moved into my apartment a couple years ago the guy that was moving out told me "oh yeah...that wire there is free cable..some other guy set it up before I got here."

I've had free cable for the past 2 years that otherwise would have cost me $50/mth or so...I feel no guilt about it and actually think more along the lines "freaking cool....I get free cable. Awesome!!"
I feel no need to call the cable-company and turn myself in...yet I also know that receiving cable for free without paying for it is illegal.


however...I do think I might have a slight moral issue with actually calling someone to come over to set up the free-cable thing for me.

i'm not sure why this is though.

[GuyOnTilt]

What problem do you have with the statement that I think those who are stealing CD's are doing it because they don't have money.

The fact that it's wrong. If you meant "most" or even better "a large number", then I have no problem with it. The problem is you didn't say that. In the future when you're debating or discussing, be sure to say what you mean and choose your words more carefully.

Now who is the one who can't logically debate here man?

Point me to a place in this thread where I've made a false or flawed statement. I'm not saying there's not one 'cause I don't ever preview or proof-read my posts, but if there is one point it out so I can fix it.

These upper-class towns and kids make up a very small percentage of the population as opposed to those who don't freely have money to buy CDs

This is probably true.

I am sorry I generalized you as rich if this is untrue, you simply knew rich people I guess?

I was fortunate enough to get scholarships to attend private schools growing up, despite my family's lack of abundant finances. And yeah, that did mean knowing a lot of rich people.

GoT

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
It matters because people act like downloaders are taking the bread out of their kids' mouths.

I still don't see how it matters. Is stealing only wrong if you're stealing someone's necessities? Would stealing a stanger's $1,000 Gucci handbag be okay in your opinion while stealing your neighbor's $1,000 bedset be wrong? Do you see theft for personal gain justifiable just so long as the victim can afford it in your eyes?

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it matters in terms of whether or not downloading is right or wrong.

It's wrong.

But it's like a millionaire complaining about getting a parking ticket.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
If you meant "most" or even better "a large number", then I have no problem with it. The problem is you didn't say that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the base of our whole mini-argument. I thought it was clear that statements like this are accepted as generalizing, but I guess not. I view forum debating as more like verbal debates, but through the net. I think you view them as a little more structured, and you are certainly not wrong for looking at it differently than I am.

As for my ability to logically debate, I will disagree. I think we just have different standards for arguing, and mine are, well, lower.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
but in fact the analogy is perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, it's not even close to perfect.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
you are doing exactly that. it's money out of the artist's pocket, justify it any way you want. I say this as someone who's on numerous records and has worked as a professional musician for many, many years. it's money out of my pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kind of funny that people are choosing to ignore that I have acknowledged that downloading music is "wrong."

Yes, it's taking money out of the artists' pockets.

I just happen to think that it's not very wrong in the grand scheme of things, given all the other factors, and certainly much less wrong than shoplifting CDs.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you guys are still talking about this? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
and certainly much less wrong than shoplifting CDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, we are all making arguments based on opinions here, but unless you have some advanced understanding of economics, business, or the nature of profit in the music industry, I don't see how you can make this statement.

We should get Partygirl UK in here to explain, he seems to understand economics.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and certainly much less wrong than shoplifting CDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, we are all making arguments based on opinions here, but unless you have some advanced understanding of economics, business, or the nature of profit in the music industry, I don't see how you can make this statement.

We should get Partygirl UK in here to explain, he seems to understand economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you need to understand those things to see that the analogy is flawed.

When you steal a CD, someone paid to have that individual CD produced, shipped and displayed on a shelf.

When you download, it's true that you're not helping pay for the studio time, artists' time, promotion, creative talent, etc, but there is also no incremental "cost" that you're stealing. These are fixed costs that have already been paid. The more units the label sells, the cheaper they become, in a sense.

So, you're not stealing "as much" as if you had shoplifted the CD.

And IMO, it's not even close.