Downloading mp3s....

[djj6835]

Inspired by the recent "Is this unethical.." post, I wanted to ask you guys a question

I actively download mp3s, but In my case I don't see it as stealing. Before I had the ability to download music I literally never purchased CDs. I was just tired of buying entire albums with one good song along with a bunch of filler. Now that I can download music I am able to preview entire CDs and then if I like it I will go out and purchase it. This is why I am now getting very frustrated at the current legal battle against downloading music. It's just kind of annoying to hear artists complain about mp3s knowing that in my case, the only way they will get any of my money is if I have the ability to download their music. In the back of my mind I just feel that the real reason artists are so upset over this whole p2p thing is that they actually need to have more than a couple good songs to sell an album. In a sense it is forcing people to put out higher quality music. Does anyone else use the ability to download music for the same reasons? If so, do you also feel the same way regarding atists complaints about p2p networks?

[swede123]

Back in some ethics class I took we learned about a list of tests that you can run by a situation to see if it's ethical, things like the "light of day" test - would you do the same thing if you were featured on the evening news doing it, and the "grandmother" test - would do you do the same thing if your grandmother knew about it.

The point of all this is that one of the tests was "is it legal?" If not it doesn't fly as ethical. I'm sure many people can think of good counter arguments for this one, but for most situations I think it's a pretty good criteron for determining this kind of stuff.

Swede

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of all this is that one of the tests was "is it legal?" If not it doesn't fly as ethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been of the opinion that legality and ethics down't always agree. There are many things that are illegal, but not unethical, and others that are legal, but unethical IMO.

For example, speeding is illegal, but if you are speeding to rush a seriously injured person to the hospital then I wouldn't call it unethical. On the other hand, smoking is completeley legal, but smoking around small children is unethical. Just my opinion.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Inspired by the recent "Is this unethical.." post, I wanted to ask you guys a question

I actively download mp3s, but In my case I don't see it as stealing. Before I had the ability to download music I literally never purchased CDs. I was just tired of buying entire albums with one good song along with a bunch of filler. Now that I can download music I am able to preview entire CDs and then if I like it I will go out and purchase it. This is why I am now getting very frustrated at the current legal battle against downloading music. It's just kind of annoying to hear artists complain about mp3s knowing that in my case, the only way they will get any of my money is if I have the ability to download their music. In the back of my mind I just feel that the real reason artists are so upset over this whole p2p thing is that they actually need to have more than a couple good songs to sell an album. In a sense it is forcing people to put out higher quality music. Does anyone else use the ability to download music for the same reasons? If so, do you also feel the same way regarding atists complaints about p2p networks?

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you do with the MP3s when there's only one good song on the album? Do you delete them all after you've reviewed them, or do you keep the one good song and then don't buy the album?

[RunDownHouse]

The whole point is that there used to be a cost associated with your actions: the price of the music. Now that the cost has been removed, of course you're going to download the music. I'm willing to bet that the value of the music you download isn't zero; for instance, if you could buy entire albums for $.50, would you do it? How is buying, say, a bootleg CD at a discounted price illegal and unethical, but downloading it for free isn't?

This, "Well, its not like they'd get my money in the first place" argument just doesn't hold water.

[lil']

I used to do what you describe. Being able to download individual songs at a very low price (like on ITunes) should be taking care of this problem for you somewhat. Pay for the one song you like and ignore the rest.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you do with the MP3s when there's only one good song on the album? Do you delete them all after you've reviewed them, or do you keep the one good song and then don't buy the album?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't download the "good" song in the first place because I already know I like it. I just download the rest of the CD. If I don't like those songs then I don't purchase the CD. I do just delete the song I downloaded if I don't like them. However I don't delete them if I went out and purchased the CD. I like to have them on my computer so I can have the CD elsewhere, in my room, car, et. Is this somewhat unethical to keep the songs on my computer even if I purchased the CD? I suppose I could just copy he songs from the CD onto my computer, but I'm just too lazy.

[turnipmonster]

as someone who has been a musician for a very long time, I can tell you that the real reason artists are upset over illegal downloading is the majority feel that they should get paid for what they produce.

the idea that artists are against downloading because they are too lazy to produce high quality work is absolutely ludicrous.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
This, "Well, its not like they'd get my money in the first place" argument just doesn't hold water.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I think you missed the point of my post. This isn't the argument I am making at all.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
the idea that artists are against downloading because they are too lazy to produce high quality work is absolutely ludicrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. That was just more of an aside to the real question.

As an artist, would you object to me downloading your music knowing that the only way I would purchase your music is if I was allowed to preview it first through my downloads? Assume I delete the music and never listen to it again if I don't purchase the CD.

[MoreWineII]

I'm not touching this one.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
As an artist, would you object to me downloading your music knowing that the only way I would purchase your music is if I was allowed to preview it first through my downloads?

[/ QUOTE ]

no not at all, but not having any control over what anyone is downloading (i.e. if it's all over p2p) is not ideal.

most artists aren't stupid, I'll probably give away my next studio recording and be happy if it gets listened to enough to be popular on any p2p. personally I wouldn't care at all, but I feel strongly it should be my decision either way.

--turnipmonster

[Easy E]

No excuses

<font color="green">I actively download mp3s, but In my case I don't see it as stealing. Before I had the ability to download music I literally never purchased CDs. I was just tired of buying entire albums with one good song along with a bunch of filler. Now that I can download music I am able to preview entire CDs </font>

You can go to many stores and preview legally. Stealing a small amount to justify a potential purchase of a larger amount is rationalizing. Besides, are you saying you spend more on CDs now than you do on stealing MP3s? Do you delete the MP3s afterwards, like a "good" boy?

Stealing is stealing is stealing. I'm not a saint and neither are most people. But just because you don't "see" it as stealing doesn't make it so.

[RunDownHouse]

You're right, I just skimmed your post and missed some important stuff. What you're doing is perfectly fine, in my opinion. You're doing the same thing as using Napster or iTunes to preview the music before you buy it, right? I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

EDIT: OK, yes, technically I suppose its stealing to download music at all. But it seems like only corporate lawyers and obstinate, insanely strict moralists would make an issue of it.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This, "Well, its not like they'd get my money in the first place" argument just doesn't hold water.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I think you missed the point of my post. This isn't the argument I am making at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm still having problems with reading comprehension, but that's how I interpreted this statement
Before I had the ability to download music I literally never purchased CDs. I was just tired of buying entire albums with one good song along with a bunch of filler

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, are you saying you spend more on CDs now than you do on stealing MP3s?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion I haven't stolen enything because all the music I have I purchase. So yes, I suppose I do spend more on CDs than I do on stealing mp3s. If the music isn't any good then I get rid of it. If it is, then I go out and buy the CD.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This, "Well, its not like they'd get my money in the first place" argument just doesn't hold water.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmmm, I think you missed the point of my post. This isn't the argument I am making at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe I'm still having problems with reading comprehension, but that's how I interpreted this statement
Before I had the ability to download music I literally never purchased CDs. I was just tired of buying entire albums with one good song along with a bunch of filler



[/ QUOTE ]

I assume what rundownhouse meant is this....

People make the argument that downloading music is fine because if they didnt have the ability to download then they just wouldn't listen to it. In other words they weren't going to purchase the CD anyways regardless of whether they can download the music or not, therefor they aren't taking any money from the artists by downloading music.

What I'm saying is almost the exact opposite. The only way they artist will will get my money is if I can preview it first. Otherwise there is no way I am purchasing a CD. The main difference between the two is that I'm still paying for all the music I own, but using the ability to download as a way to decide whether I want to make the purchase or not.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
You're doing the same thing as using Napster or iTunes to preview the music before you buy it, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, the only thing that may be somewhat unethical in my opinion is that if I do decide to purchase the CD, I don't delete the mp3s from my computer.

[MrTrik]

I dunno. It's all black and white to me. If you can enjoy the music and you didn't pay for it, it's illegal and unethical. There is no grey area here. If the ability to enjoy it wasn't paid for, well face it, you're a thief.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno. It's all black and white to me. If you can enjoy the music and you didn't pay for it, it's illegal and unethical. There is no grey area here. If the ability to enjoy it wasn't paid for, well face it, you're a thief.



[/ QUOTE ]

But it is paid for eventually assuming I want to continue to listen to the music.

[Easy E]

If the music isn't any good then I get rid of it. If it is, then I go out and buy the CD.

Isn't there supposed to be a price for downloading MP3s?

And how is your argument different from "I shoplifted a CD but didn't like it, so I threw it away... therefore I didn't steal it"? Other than the cost of your theft, that is?

Think about that for a little bit.

[RunDownHouse]

From what I understand, if any of the defendants in these lawsuits brought by the RIAA could have proved they bought all of the music found on their computer, they would have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

I rip all the CDs I buy. Of course, I also download MP3s with the full understanding that its stealing.

[RunDownHouse]

A much better analogy is stealing the CD from the store for an hour, and then going back and either paying for it or replacing it. If its thrown away, then the owner has suffered a real loss of $X.

[Easy E]

and "if not" ?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
In the back of my mind I just feel that the real reason artists are so upset over this whole p2p thing is that they actually need to have more than a couple good songs to sell an album.

[/ QUOTE ]

The back of your mind is full of unethical and uninformed garbage. Good luck growing up.

-ptmusic

[BusterStacks]

I enjoy getting stuff for free more than I enjoy paying for it.

that is all.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
A much better analogy is stealing the CD from the store for an hour, and then going back and either paying for it or replacing it. If its thrown away, then the owner has suffered a real loss of $X.



[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, the CD actually has a pysical value that the store is losing when you throw it away. As far as I'm concerned no one is losing any money doing what I'm doing.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
The back of your mind is full of unethical and uninformed garbage. Good luck growing up.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna go out on a limb or and say that you are a musical artist of some sort.

I'm not talking about all artists here but some....*cough* metallica *cough*. And I don't think this is an entirely untrue statment, and for some artists had to be something they are very concerned about. Look at how many artists before the time of illegal downloads would get rich off of one hit song. I don't think that is the case anymore.

I'll assume you're an artist and propose to you this. You can come up with one good song and I will pay you $2 million, or you can come up with six or more good songs and I will pay you $2 million. You decide, the answer seems pretty obvious to me....

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll assume you're an artist and propose to you this. You can come up with one good song and I will pay you $2 million, or you can come up with six or more good songs and I will pay you $2 million. You decide, the answer seems pretty obvious to me....

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not at all how the music industry works.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
this is not at all how the music industry works.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know, I'm just trying to make a point.

[Easy E]

Bullshit. MP3s are a service, not a product (in fact, every 'product' is really a service in disguise, but that's for another post)

If there is a fee for acquiring the use of a service, and you don't pay that price, then that's not theft to you?

Now, the CD analogy. If a friend bought a CD and you borrowed it to check it out, that's one thing. If you make a copy of a song, or the entire CD, with your friend's permission, both of you are stealing based on licensing rights inherent in the purchase of the original CD.

That is what I am equating the trading of MP3s to. Now, if the record companies and recording artists put MP3s out there for free, then they relinquish the rights to get paid for the use of those MP3s.

I've never downloaded an MP3, so I may not know something that I should here.

As to the previous reply:
is stealing the CD from the store for an hour, and then going back and either paying for it or replacing it. If its thrown away, then the owner has suffered a real loss of $X.
If you don't see why this is a "real loss of $X" then you don't understand the service being offered. Is this Blockbuster, or a record store?

[Easy E]

What I'm saying is almost the exact opposite. The only way they artist will will get my money is if I can preview it first. Otherwise there is no way I am purchasing a CD. The main difference between the two is that I'm still paying for all the music I own, but using the ability to download as a way to decide whether I want to make the purchase or not.

And as I said in another reply, if this service- previewing music through MP3s- is offered for free, then it's acceptable.

If it's supposed to require an investment to get this service, then it's not acceptable.

Do you see that the price for a CD would have to be about $200K if people could borrow songs from the one CD that is made?

I know it's an extreme, ridiculous scenario. But the point is the same.

[ThisHo]

[ QUOTE ]
Inspired by the recent "Is this unethical.." post, I wanted to ask you guys a question

I actively download mp3s, but In my case I don't see it as stealing. Before I had the ability to download music I literally never purchased CDs. I was just tired of buying entire albums with one good song along with a bunch of filler. Now that I can download music I am able to preview entire CDs and then if I like it I will go out and purchase it. This is why I am now getting very frustrated at the current legal battle against downloading music. It's just kind of annoying to hear artists complain about mp3s knowing that in my case, the only way they will get any of my money is if I have the ability to download their music. In the back of my mind I just feel that the real reason artists are so upset over this whole p2p thing is that they actually need to have more than a couple good songs to sell an album. In a sense it is forcing people to put out higher quality music. Does anyone else use the ability to download music for the same reasons? If so, do you also feel the same way regarding atists complaints about p2p networks?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is as close to "gray" as I've seen an argument for downloading music. If you really/truly/honestly download to sample and then delete if you don't like, but buy if you do like then I guess its fine. But.. as soon as you keep 1 song and don't buy the album, you've crossed the line. Also, how long do you take to "evaluate" the music? Do you play it for a month and then decide? A day? A week? I'm not sure what is "acceptable"? If you really do it as you say then I wouldn't call it stealing, but I doubt that you really are 100% honest here.

ThisHo

[Easy E]

which is?

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
which is?

[/ QUOTE ]

that along with being upset over not getting paid for their work, artists would also get upset over the fact that they have to put out higher quality products to get the sales they used to get before downloadable music.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Bullshit. MP3s are a service, not a product (in fact, every 'product' is really a service in disguise, but that's for another post)

If there is a fee for acquiring the use of a service, and you don't pay that price, then that's not theft to you?



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I'm not saying no one is losing any money if I downlaod music and don't pay for it. I'm saying no one is losing any money if I merely use the downloads to preview the music and then go out and purchase the CDs. This is why your initial CD analogy doesn't really apply to what I am doing.