Why do you not download music illegally?

[s0me0nesmind1]

Music is a lot like Movies... the more that comes out.. the more that suck.




That or I'm just becoming an old fart at the ripe age of 26...

 

[biostud]

Because the artists I listen to aren't millionaires.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Ignoring for the moment that you can't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC in an ABX test, no matter how good your sound system is...

Just because you don't like the format a song is distributed in doesn't mean you're justified in stealing it. Your options are to buy it the way that they want to sell, or not have it at all.

An analogy: I think the way we sell cars in this country is broken. The fact that Toyota (for example) is required to sell me cars through independent dealers is not only inefficient, but costs me a lot of time and money every time I want to buy a new car. There's no good reason that I shouldn't be allowed to put together a model I like on their website, and go pick it up at a distribution center. I think most of the people in this forum would probably agree with me. However, I don't think anyone would say that gives me the right to walk into the lot of a dealership and steal the car I want.

I was thinking about this heavily when states were denying Tesla the right to sell in their state because of this issue, and I was able to come up with one very big reason why dealerships are needed...

GM. Every fuckin' car of theirs for a 5 year or so span had a re-call. What would these companies do if people couldn't drive down to a local dealership to get it fixed? "Oh yeah, just drive on down from Florida to California at our flagship store to get that deadly issue fixed!"

Meh, at the same time I think people should have the right to sell... so it's a mixed bag for me.

 

[crashtestdummy]

You're confused. Copyright infringement isn't stealing. If I take a Toyota off a lot, I'm depriving the original owner of that car. If I make one copy, or 10b copies of a song, the original owner still has that song. The two concepts aren't the same legally, and they aren't the same philosophically, regardless of what the music industry wants to pretend.

That's nonsense. You're assuming then, that the real value of any object is strictly tied to the material costs behind it. The ease with which something can be replicated has nothing to do with its value or whether you're justfied in taking it.

I think there's a very strong case to be made that the way we control intellectual property is flawed. In particular, the perpetual nature of copyrights and the very narrow nature of fair use allowances stifle creativity. However, those were the rules under which the creators agreed to make their works, and if you think it should be different, push to change the rules rather than just steal.

 

[phucheneh]

That's nonsense. You're assuming then, that the real value of any object is strictly tied to the material costs behind it. The ease with which something can be replicated has nothing to do with its value or whether you're justfied in taking it.

I think there's a very strong case to be made that the way we control intellectual property is flawed. In particular, the perpetual nature of copyrights and the very narrow nature of fair use allowances stifle creativity. However, those were the rules under which the creators agreed to make their works, and if you think it should be different, push to change the rules rather than just steal.

That's nonsense. You're assuming [that] someone who possesses an illegitimate copy of something would have payed for a proper one.

That thinking is everything that is wrong with the RIAA/MPAA/et al. 'Napster costed us fifteen quintillion bajillion dollars! The horror!'

 

[lxskllr]

That's nonsense. You're assuming then, that the real value of any object is strictly tied to the material costs behind it. The ease with which something can be replicated has nothing to do with its value or whether you're justfied in taking it.

Congratulations, you missed the entire point. The difference is if I take that car, it's the only car in existence, and I'm depriving the owner use of that car. The ease that something can be replicated has nothing *at all* to do with the argument. Copyright infringement is distinctly different from theft. If you can't see that, it's a good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be disbarred before you paid off your school debt.

As to the copyright terms a "creator" agreed to... That's patently bullshit. They've retroactively expanded copyright, presumably to increase the total number of historic works. When do you suppose we get to hear some new Glenn Miller tunes? Any week now I'm sure...

 

[IamDavid]

Microsoft music. Before it I downloaded off shady sites. Now, I'm 100% legit.

 

[crashtestdummy]

That's nonsense. You're assuming [that] someone who possesses an illegitimate copy of something would have payed for a proper one.

That thinking is everything that is wrong with the RIAA/MPAA/et al. 'Napster costed us fifteen quintillion bajillion dollars! The horror!'

Not at all. If I create something, I have a right to determine how it's sold, regardless of whether it makes me more money to do so or not. Hell, I can decide that I don't want it sold at all. Simply saying that you wouldn't have paid for it doesn't mean that you're able to take it for free.

Congratulations, you missed the entire point. The difference is if I take that car, it's the only car in existence, and I'm depriving the owner use of that car. The ease that something can be replicated has nothing *at all* to do with the argument. Copyright infringement is distinctly different from theft. If you can't see that, it's a good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be disbarred before you paid off your school debt.

As to the copyright terms a "creator" agreed to... That's patently bullshit. They've retroactively expanded copyright, presumably to increase the total number of historic works. When do you suppose we get to hear some new Glenn Miller tunes? Any week now I'm sure...

You're drawing a distinction between physical and intellectual property that doesn't really exist in the modern world. The value of those cars has as much to do with the intellectual work put into the design of the object as the cost of manufacture. If I steal a car from a factory, the maker will pursue me for the retail value of the car, not the cost of manufacture, because you have violated their right to distribute it as they see fit.

As I said before, I think we're in agreement that the rules around copyright are not well made, but calling for a change in the law is very different than simply going out and violating it.

 

[MrDudeMan]

It's not stupid to say he can download illegally in FLAC format. iTunes doesn't sell music in ALAC format - or they didn't the last time I checked.

Yes, it is stupid to say that. I wasn't even addressing the legality of this issue which makes it even more stupid. Not everything I want is available for free and I'm also not willing to go through the hassle of acquiring it. The vast majority of people are like me in this regard, which is why the situation is how it is. Saying free stuff is better than non-free stuff when there are extremely obvious differences is utter nonsense. To make this simple, if you want to steal things, you're a moron. If you want to listen to lossless audio, you aren't an idiot in theory, but you are an idiot if you think Apple, Amazon, etc. should make every single song available in that format when the majority couldn't give two shits about it. I have zero issue with lossless audio in concept... why would I care? What I took exception to was the idea that lossless audio is better in the general case because it definitely isn't. If it was, everyone would be using it. There are other significant trade-offs like availability and certainly size.

What the majority wants doesn't matter. There's a significant minority that doesn't want mp3 for one reason or another, and if you insist on meeting someone that doesn't, congratulations, you just did.

The original question in the OP [paraphrased] "Why do you pirate?" The answer for some is "Because music doesn't come in the format I want".

What the majority wants is pretty much the only thing that matters. I'm not insisting on meeting someone who cares about this because it's about as rare as a yeti sighting.

The answer to the OP which I quoted and thus this argument is based presented free music as superior in the general sense. That's actually what we're discussing, not which format is superior. Your paraphrased Q/A is fine and respectable for your own opinion.

You're in denial. You HAVE come across several people who care about it...in this thread!

I'm not in denial. I simply don't care to even acknowledge your preference just as you aren't acknowledging mine. The only difference is that 90% or more of the population agrees with me, thus music is encoded as an mp3 and every consumer device on the planet expects that format. It doesn't matter which of us prefers what and I never said otherwise. I only brought up my opinion because it's very obviously aligned with most people on the planet who listen to music. For proof, see the iPod.

I buy real CDs so I can rip them in lossless ALAC format. I care about the quality.

Awesome. I still don't care because that's not what this is about.

Also, this thread was asking why YOU would choose not to pirate music. Some folks said they choose to pirate for better quality that's not available for purchase. You're telling these individuals that they don't really care about lossless formats because, um, because most people don't care? That argument doesn't even make sense!

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that a thread on a forum can't evolve into a legitimate abstracted discussion about the original topic? Anyway, I said it's stupid to compare illegally acquired or free music with paid for music especially if you're trying to compare quality because that's not even what is being discussed. There's no argument to be had if availability of the superior and free music is zero.

I'm no audiophile and my car speakers absolutely suck. On top of that, my hearing isn't so great...but I can tell the difference between a bad lossy encode and a better quality one. Most people can, they simply don't know what they're missing. That's what people mean when they say "ignorance is bliss."

The majority of people aren't as ignorant as you suggest, but I see how that would help you argument. As a majority user who also happens to be tech savvy, let me try to explain this to you. I can pick up my phone and buy an mp3 in about 10 seconds. It's then permanently synced to every device in my house as well as my wife's devices. When free and/or illegal audio is that easy to get, it will gain in popularity and then availability will most likely increase significantly. None of this has anything to do with the original quote that I questioned and subsequently called stupid.

 

[master_shake_]

i don't download music becauase there are no good new artists.

also the music i do like i can get by recording music off youtube.

 

[Imp]

Same here. I barely buy music anymore, so no reason to pirate.

I'm not a fan of the dreck that is 99% of music nowadays. Most of the artists that I blindly follow are retired or dead (RIP 黃家駒, 梅艷芳, 張國&#27054😉. I buy discounted iTunes cards usually when they're at least 20% off face value and buy my songs that way. Since I mostly don't new songs worthy of purchase, I will only buy the occasional single. In fact, I'd say I average less than $10 per year, hell, probably lower than $5 per year over the last 5 years.

There's a couple of radio stations that stream online that I listen to (mostly Chinese) but I still find very few songs worthy of buying.

I spend maybe $20 to $30 a year on music. Other stuff I listen to in passing, I just look it up on YouTube and watch the video. Now the record company gets ad money from me... If I really like it, I eventually buy it off iTunes. Unfortunately, I find that a lot of stuff I buy off iTunes that I used to like on YouTube, I no longer like after I have full 24/7 access to it.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yes, it is stupid to say that. I wasn't even addressing the legality of this issue which makes it even more stupid. Not everything I want is available for free and I'm also not willing to go through the hassle of acquiring it. The vast majority of people are like me in this regard, which is why the situation is how it is. Saying free stuff is better than non-free stuff when there are extremely obvious differences is utter nonsense. To make this simple, if you want to steal things, you're a moron. If you want to listen to lossless audio, you aren't an idiot in theory, but you are an idiot if you think Apple, Amazon, etc. should make every single song available in that format when the majority couldn't give two shits about it. I have zero issue with lossless audio in concept... why would I care? What I took exception to was the idea that lossless audio is better in the general case because it definitely isn't. If it was, everyone would be using it. There are other significant trade-offs like availability and certainly size.



What the majority wants is pretty much the only thing that matters. I'm not insisting on meeting someone who cares about this because it's about as rare as a yeti sighting.

The answer to the OP which I quoted and thus this argument is based presented free music as superior in the general sense. That's actually what we're discussing, not which format is superior. Your paraphrased Q/A is fine and respectable for your own opinion.



I'm not in denial. I simply don't care to even acknowledge your preference just as you aren't acknowledging mine. The only difference is that 90% or more of the population agrees with me, thus music is encoded as an mp3 and every consumer device on the planet expects that format. It doesn't matter which of us prefers what and I never said otherwise. I only brought up my opinion because it's very obviously aligned with most people on the planet who listen to music. For proof, see the iPod.



Awesome. I still don't care because that's not what this is about.



Are you seriously trying to make the argument that a thread on a forum can't evolve into a legitimate abstracted discussion about the original topic? Anyway, I said it's stupid to compare illegally acquired or free music with paid for music especially if you're trying to compare quality because that's not even what is being discussed. There's no argument to be had if availability of the superior and free music is zero.



The majority of people aren't as ignorant as you suggest, but I see how that would help you argument. As a majority user who also happens to be tech savvy, let me try to explain this to you. I can pick up my phone and buy an mp3 in about 10 seconds. It's then permanently synced to every device in my house as well as my wife's devices. When free and/or illegal audio is that easy to get, it will gain in popularity and then availability will most likely increase significantly. None of this has anything to do with the original quote that I questioned and subsequently called stupid.

I see a lot of willful self-denial in your comments. I'll address one: Why do you say that free lossless music is not available?

I gave up trying to find the "Little Shop of Horrors" movie soundtrack on iTunes / Amazon for download, so I bought the CD from an Amazon seller in a foreign country for like $0.30 and it took months to arrive. Because I wanted to listen to it immediately, I searched online for "little shop of horrors soundtrack FLAC" and found it immediately.

I bought another album at Goodwill thrift store and later found out it was supposed to be 2 discs (seemed like a single-disc case, but it wasn't). I easily found a FLAC copy online and only downloaded the tracks for the missing disc.

For the record, I bend over backward to pay for anything I can. You are 100% wrong to imply that free FLAC music is not easy to find online. It's practically 100% certain you can find a pirated FLAC copy of any mainstream album, but you can't easily find a legitimate lossless version.

Heck, the LSoH example isn't even that mainstream (you can't even buy a lossy digital download).

 

[Ichinisan]

I've always wondered: Can some lossy formats use as many channels as they want, even if the output is only stereo? Seems compression would be WAY better if vocals and individual instruments were separated and compressed separately. It would be easier to recognize repetitions and such. Like a track with drums could be optimized to compress that kind of sound.

An isolated track with a repeating beat, another with piano/keyboard, another with guitar, another with vocals, etc...

I've always wondered if "mastered in iTunes" albums worked this way.
For increased output fidelity, the player software / device could assign different tracks to different speakers.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I see a lot of willful self-denial in your comments. I'll address one: Why do you say that free lossless music is not available?

I gave up trying to find the "Little Shop of Horrors" movie soundtrack on iTunes / Amazon for download, so I bought the CD from an Amazon seller in a foreign country for like $0.30 and it took months to arrive. Because I wanted to listen to it immediately, I searched online for "little shop of horrors soundtrack FLAC" and found it immediately.

I bought another album at Goodwill thrift store and later found out it was supposed to be 2 discs (seemed like a single-disc case, but it wasn't). I easily found a FLAC copy online and only downloaded the tracks for the missing disc.

For the record, I bend over backward to pay for anything I can. You are 100% wrong to imply that free FLAC music is not easy to find online. It's practically 100% certain you can find a pirated FLAC copy of any mainstream album, but you can't easily find a legitimate lossless version.

Heck, the LSoH example isn't even that mainstream (you can't even buy a lossy digital download).

I have no idea what willful self-denial even means in this context to be perfectly honest. Nice use of a buzzword, though.

I want to quickly and easily buy stuff that sounds good enough and I want to spend exactly zero additional effort to acquire it. You seem to be losing sight of that fact and also that the vast majority of people operate that way, which is the premise of my entire argument against the post that I originally quoted which lead to this discussion. No part of that puts me in a state of denial. Quite the opposite, actually, because I know exactly what I'm willing to do and how far I'm willing to go to do it.

 

[Ichinisan]

I have no idea what willful self-denial even means in this context to be perfectly honest. Nice use of a buzzword, though.

I want to quickly and easily buy stuff that sounds good enough and I want to spend exactly zero additional effort to acquire it. You seem to be losing sight of that fact and also that the vast majority of people operate that way, which is the premise of my entire argument against the post that I originally quoted which lead to this discussion. No part of that puts me in a state of denial. Quite the opposite, actually, because I know exactly what I'm willing to do and how far I'm willing to go to do it.

Someone here said he pirates because higher-quality (lossless) music is not available for purchase online.

You said (multiple times) that it's not available for free and said that's not a valid reason someone might want to pirate. It is available and easy to find.

Stealing is wrong, but don't ignore the reasons some people do it and insist it's not the reason.

You said many times that it's not a reason he and many others pirate music -- because the majority of other people don't care. He said why he pirates music. How can you say it's not the reason he does it? It's not a justification. It's a reason.

Some people steal because they're lazy / selfish / greedy. Those are also reasons. Not justifications.

I agree that the majority don't care about music quality. A minority does care. You don't seem to realize that this minority is not "insignificant."

 

[Zodiark1593]

Because I can stream all the music on my phone as I damn well please.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Someone here said he pirates because higher-quality (lossless) music is not available for purchase online.

You said (multiple times) that it's not available for free and said that's not a valid reason someone might want to pirate. It is available and easy to find.

Are you saying that CD-quality ("lossless") downloads are available for purchase? Very little is available for download in a lossless format. Some indie bands put stuff online, plus a few scattered mainstream artists and labels, but the vast majority of music released on CD is not available for purchase online in a high quality format.

I agree that the majority don't care about music quality. A minority does care. You don't seem to realize that this minority is not "insignificant."

It's pretty damned insignificant, or else more content would be available. Supply and demand, and all that.

 

[Ichinisan]

Are you saying that CD-quality ("lossless") downloads are available for purchase?

Widely available for legal purchase? No.
Widely available for illegal download? Yes. (For some reason, MrDudeMan disputes this).

Very little is available for download in a lossless format. Some indie bands put stuff online, plus a few scattered mainstream artists and labels, but the vast majority of music released on CD is not available for purchase online in a high quality format.

This is true.

It's pretty damned insignificant, or else more content would be available. Supply and demand, and all that.

They're significant. Media companies respond to market demands with extreme delays sometimes. iTunes has increased their music quality not very long ago and removed DRM in direct response to market forces including piracy.

 

[Carson Dyle]

They're significant. Media companies respond to market demands with extreme delays sometimes. iTunes has increased their music quality not very long ago and removed DRM in direct response to market forces including piracy.

The only thing that would push, say, iTunes into this would be the success of a service like Pango. And Pango's success will ultimately have to do with marketing and little else. It's not going to happen because existing customers insist on better quality downloads. Because they don't care.

What you're also missing is that those who insist on at least CD-quality music sources have only moderate interest in downloading their music to begin with. Even if CD-quality lossless download were available, I'd continue to purchase the CDs. This market segment has much less of the "I want it now" mentality of the typical American teenager.

 

[Cerb]

Because it's highly inconvenient, compared to just buying it, and I'm not a broke student anymore (still often broke, but with a substantial paycheck coming soon at the time 😉). Used CDs from Amazon and eBay sellers are my main drugs of choice, plus the occasional thrift store find. There are a few good download options for the same or better, but only a few. CDs are also still cheaper than downloading in most cases.

 

[Cerb]

I've always wondered: Can some lossy formats use as many channels as they want, even if the output is only stereo? Seems compression would be WAY better if vocals and individual instruments were separated and compressed separately. It would be easier to recognize repetitions and such. Like a track with drums could be optimized to compress that kind of sound.

While not to that degree, surround mixes are usually compressed DD or AC3, as those are supported by most players and receivers.

 

[DigDog]

What do you mean by this?

that the music created by bedroom artists i find on youtube is consistently better than the "better-safe-than-sorry" music put out by most labels, both majors and minors.

labels aren't trying in any way to push the envelope. they will put out the same soft rock / pop garbage over and over again, and this goes for every style there is. even metal bands put out the same stuff over and over again.

i find radio airplay revolting. mtv makes me sick. not "ha ah fun joke *figuratively sick* " but actually ill. i feel sick when i listen to the radio or when i watch TV.

this also goes for most other media, like film; i can't watch for example, the bit in Captain America where Samuel L Jackson speaks. i have to skip it or it makes me sick.

sorry but it's just the same stuff rehashed over .. etc..

otoh on youtube you can get stuff like .. misteryguitarman .. vadrum .. pryapisme .. smoothmcgroove .. chiptunes .. barbershop / accappella .. terranoise .. scottbradleylovesya.. plus ofc a host of various instrumentalists, singers, media artists and musicians who make amazing music and often amazing videos to go with the music as well.

generally, if someone's managed to get to the stage where their music is being put on CD and sold in a shop, it's already stale.

ozzy's last "decent" album was No Rest For The Wicked and even that was kida meh compared to the two earlier ones. Van Hallen's latest "crtitically acclaimed" album is garbage, and so is Werid Al's "i have a number 1" album, and this coming from someone who had to endure years of jocks bullying me because he was all i used to listen to.

What else? Thicke? Shakira? Madonna? Bowie?
I love ScottBradlee's version of Timber, but hate the real version. Have you tried listening to the new Pixies album? spoiler: its revolting, together with anything FB has done after Teenager of The Year.
Even Daft Punk's album is just a hour and a half of boredom with two well produced, quite unexciting dance tracks. I like Tommyknocker's version of Supernatural but can't stand the original.

I really don't knwo WHAT today would be considered "good music" coming from a major, but sure nothing comparable to what used to come out in the past.
(Hardware Store and Genius in France were good songs, i gotta admit)

actually, you know what, i'm not quite done yet.

The sell-records-for-money business model is dead. I will not support it because both i don't want to and i can afford not to.

If a musician wants my money, i can listen to their music, and *if* i like it, go watch them LIVE in concert (where i expect them to be able to perform at the same level as they did on the album).
If the artist in question doesn't want me to listen (for free) to their album, then i won't go to the concert.

Yeah maybe today the records companies still make money out of record sales and promotions .. but it will end. And fortunately for the artists it will end, because the truth of the recording industry scandal is bad enough to wanton its own thread.
(source: go to the bookstore @ Berklee college, buy the books for the Music Business course, and read them)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWgs6dWoYM0