Using P2P, TORRENTS, FTPs for sharing music. Is it 'wrong'? - what say you?

[Guest KyoAcid]

I think it is...but what do you think?

 

 

Sent from a mobile device using Tapatalk

[manmower]

Why is this in the Aphex Twin forum?

 

I don't consider it morally wrong to download a copy of a physical release I've bought. These days it's faster than ripping it yourself. I can't remember the last time I downloaded something I didn't also buy, it must have been a rip of some very limited release that I was simply unable to get. Or maybe an occasional pop song off of SoulSeek to put on my MP3 player for when I go jogging or something, now that I think of it.

 

Now of course when you keep seeding a torrent you're also uploading. But I tell myself the ones who don't pay for the music would have downloaded it from someone else anyway.

[Friendly Foil]

I don't think pirating is very nice tbh. Especially when it comes to the idms and all that, which is usually released on smaller labels. But enough about me because I found some interesting data on the subject:

 

So if we look at the data, it's clear that a lot of people simply don't care. I don't know what to make of this but imo the data speaks for itself. I guess this is what capitalism has done to us as human beings. it SICKENS me!!!

[solarion]

i had so much fun playing with those torrents

[eugene]

NOT downloading music for free and perpetuating that monster called the music industry is wrong.

 

if the artist needs some cash for what basically is his/her hobby he should ask so explicitly, and if you feel like throwing a few bucks to support him then why not. but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

[Cryptowen]

NOT downloading music for free and perpetuating that monster called the music industry is wrong.

 

if the artist needs some cash for what basically is his/her hobby he should ask so explicitly, and if you feel like throwing a few bucks to support him then why not. but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

ding ding muthafuckas

[hoggy]

it's wrong if you like it and then don't buy it when you want to keep it and it's bad because musicians might not get enough money to spend a few of years making something really amazing (like Drukqs), and there isn't the possibility to be developed (like Kate Bush did - she was signed before she was ready and given the opportunity to develop)

 

what can you do though, people will steal or not as they see fit - just buy as much as you can afford if you want to support it - the only other option is state funding for artists deemed worthy by an arts council like they do with art, but I don't really agree with the choices of such councils, or having more internet surveillance and prosecuting anyone who pirates above a certain level - but that's impossible and would be an invasion of everyone's privacy (not that everyone's privacy isn't being invaded anyway)

 

I should probably start buying a few of the albums I've found through piracy every month (especially the less popular stuff that probably doesn't get much financial support like Hair Stylistics) - I do buy new releases from people I'm really into though, even before I've heard them

 

edit: I don't support the internet surveillance thing at all by they way, I only mention it to point out that stopping piracy is impossible without resorting to such awful measures

[foresense]

I like the idea of buying something I like. it filters the good from the bad on my harddisk. I got into a LOT of music because of piracy, but only the stuff I end up buying stays.

[Joyrex]

NOT downloading music for free and perpetuating that monster called the music industry is wrong.

 

if the artist needs some cash for what basically is his/her hobby he should ask so explicitly, and if you feel like throwing a few bucks to support him then why not. but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

 

 

 

NOT downloading music for free and perpetuating that monster called the music industry is wrong.

 

if the artist needs some cash for what basically is his/her hobby he should ask so explicitly, and if you feel like throwing a few bucks to support him then why not. but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

ding ding muthafuckas

 

You do realize that by "throwing a few bucks" would remove almost all incentive for people to try to make a living making music? Sure, there are musicians who do it for the money, but what about artists who love making music, and in order to have the time to make said music, try and make a living off it?

 

I agree the way the current music industry is structured has some problems, and the whole digital revolution is changing that - however that doesn't mean that stealing someone's work and depriving them of making a living justifies that.

[Cryptowen]

I've had mixed feelings on this, because on the one hand it's not my place to tell artists how they should feel about their art, ownership, money, etc

 

BUT on the other hand, a lot of my favourite records are like, early works made before the person got famous, or something they do on the side as a hobby, or made with a hella-low budget in a short period of time. Situations where the person wouldn't have been able to make music all day every day. When I hear someone say "if i wasn't making a living at this, I wouldn't be able to do it", doubtful eyebrow gonna be raising. Art's always going to be made under some form of oppression. You do it anyway because it's what you do

 

really i try not to form a strong opinion on this issue because it's too big. It's evolving too quick, our debates about it on the internet won't change much. Etc. I just don't like when people stick too close to the old ways, because things are different now and they're gonna just keep getting more different

[eugene]

@joyrex

 

well that's the point, i don't think that making music for a living is a good thing. music is not a job, it's supposed to be art. those who love doing will keep doing it whether they're rich or poor. there's always time to make music because it's just a part of life of a musician. whether it's 40 minutes a day or 4 hours...i don't think it's possible to quantify the quality of music as a function of time.

 

*internet hi-fives cryptowen*

[Cryptowen]

whether it's 40 minutes a day or 4 hours

ooh ooh that raises another point

there are indie guys out there who spend 40+ hours a week producing, and it all sounds samey to my ears. Meanwhile there are folks out there who pick up an instrument once a month & just bop something out, but it sounds adventurous. *obviously this is a case by case situation, and the dude making 4000 rap beats a month might love what he's doing*

 

The "practice makes perfect" mindset is popular because it's a means of quantifying talent, but the talent you develop from having lots of time to practice is mostly technical. Dedication != inspiration

[delet...]

supposed to be art eh. So rich people in years after you've died can hang your painting on the wall that you sold for pennies and they recently acquired for solid gold bars and a bucket of uranium. And all they do to make their money is probably something like trading commodities or derivatives or some such unproductive pursuit that is pointless to humanity.

[Nebraska]

i used to download a lot, keeping huge databases of music filed in folders based on genre, until it started becoming a chore either keeping up with releases or maintaining the archives. not to mention i was hardly listening to all that music. then one day i just deleted it all.

 

now i only download to discover new music, and out of my entire digital catalogue, i have purchased about 80% of it (whether on vinyl or digital). i also try and keep my collection under a certain amount, because i don't want to have a huge archive which i don't know. i'd rather have a small collection that i absolutely love- so i end up actually ignoring some music just so i can better manage my time

[YangYing]

no

[joshuatxuk]

i'd rather have a small collection that i absolutely love- so i end up actually ignoring some music just so i can better manage my time

 

Story of my life. A work in progress but my god, I used to download so much needlessly.

 

I kind of miss the fun of accidental downloads turning into happy accident finds, the frustrations and joy of navigating through mislabeled files, or the now nostalgic (for me) sound of remarkably low-bit mp3s.

 

Streaming has helped A LOT. I still think p2p networks like soulseek are a must as an absolute back-up to get copies of stuff you can't stream, buy digitally, or find easily in physical format.

[foresense]

@joyrex

 

well that's the point, i don't think that making music for a living is a good thing. music is not a job, it's supposed to be art. those who love doing will keep doing it whether they're rich or poor. there's always time to make music because it's just a part of life of a musician. whether it's 40 minutes a day or 4 hours...i don't think it's possible to quantify the quality of music as a function of time.

 

*internet hi-fives cryptowen*

so are you saying that making a living off something you love doing is a bad thing? or why the distinction with art? art is as much a tradeable commodity as anything else, food for the soul. I don't believe artists should be exploited just because they would be doing it anyway.

 

the part about time is bs too.. there's a craft that makes your ideas more structurally sound, you need time to develop that stuff. of course a big ego can start filling in a lack of ideas with bullshit skills. but to assume that's what automatically will happen is fucked up.

 

coincidentally, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged now lol.

[VIII]

but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

THis is wrong on a few different levels... Hand packaged cdrs for instance, and the cost (time and labor also) of getting CDs duped/designed for an artist with a small following

 

i think paypal ing an artist five bucks and the torrenting his entire back catalog is kind of weird. maybe its okay for a well known act and not someone working in near obscurity

 

i too developed my music taste with years of downloading/listening to thousands of tracks, but actually buying the tape/cd/vinyl is what i try to do currently

[VIII]

i used to download a lot, keeping huge databases of music filed in folders based on genre, until it started becoming a chore\

same here, but since i have a lot of storage i just leave it as is. i think p2p cheapens music in a sense

[VIII]

Thanks

[gmanyo]

I almost exclusively buy music or listen to it low quality online (which, if it's something I like, I'll purchase). I run into a couple of problems though. do I really think that using the iTunes store is helping the musicians that much? Do I really want to help out shitty parts of the music business?

 

Here's the biggest problem though - I can't afford to have much of the music that I would like to listen to. This sounds more like a complaint than a problem, but think about it like this: would an artist rather me torrent their music and listen to it than to not listen at all, even if I'm not buying their stuff? If I walked up to most artists saying "Hey, I love your music, sorry I don't listen to it more often, I can't afford it", I feel like they would be annoyed or even offended that I didn't just download it. But I continue to not listen to music because I cannot afford it.

 

As a side note, I think that Odd Future's marketing strategy is cool, where they give away all of their music for free and only sell merchandise. I think if I become a professional musician that's what I want to do.

[apriorion]

The answer to the original question: "Yes, obviously."

 

NOT downloading music for free and perpetuating that monster called the music industry is wrong.

 

if the artist needs some cash for what basically is his/her hobby he should ask so explicitly, and if you feel like throwing a few bucks to support him then why not. but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

 

A "hobby"? For people who are very good at it and devote their lives to it, it's more than a mere hobby. Why shouldn't there be a professional industry to keep these people going? If that means selling physical copies or licensed digital copies, what's wrong with that? According to the line of thought here, many arts would similarly be considered a hobby, and they should pursue their work in the panhandler method you describe. But that's plainly ridiculous: should skilled teachers simply offer their insights and instruction and then they should basically beg for a "few bucks" to be thrown their way for their hobby? What about novelists? What about engineers? "Oh, sorry it took you so long to get the expertise you have with designing automobiles, but you shouldn't be paid for the designs you worked so hard to flesh out: if you want a few bucks, here I'll throw some at you to support you, but you gotta ask for it explicitly." Ridiculous.

[Nebraska]

Here's the biggest problem though - I can't afford to have much of the music that I would like to listen to.

 

this is something i hear a lot from people that support downloading, but what i don't understand is: why do you feel you deserve to "own" the music if you cannot afford it? couldn't you just go the spotify route and stream it? don't we all get things based on our budgets, and forgo the things we cannot afford?

 

and i don't think the major issue here is the piracy itself, but just how widespread it is. because i think there will always be some form of piracy: whether it's buying bootlegs or recording things from borrowed sources (eg. library)

 

also you gave the example of odd future giving music away for free and selling merchandise. i'm guessing they have a different deal from the standard 360 deal because most labels take a cut of that as well.

[gmanyo]

 

Here's the biggest problem though - I can't afford to have much of the music that I would like to listen to.

 

this is something i hear a lot from people that support downloading, but what i don't understand is: why do you feel you deserve to "own" the music if you cannot afford it? couldn't you just go the spotify route and stream it? don't we all get things based on our budgets, and forgo the things we cannot afford?

 

and i don't think the major issue here is the piracy itself, but just how widespread it is. because i think there will always be some form of piracy: whether it's buying bootlegs or recording things from borrowed sources (eg. library)

 

also you gave the example of odd future giving music away for free and selling merchandise. i'm guessing they have a different deal from the standard 360 deal because most labels take a cut of that as well.

Read my post again. My point was not that I was mad that I couldn't afford it but that the artists would rather me download it than not listen to it because I can't afford it, which is what happens.

[Nebraska]

Read my post again. My point was not that I was mad that I couldn't afford it but that the artists would rather me download it than not listen to it because I can't afford it, which is what happens.

 

actually i did read that part, but i thought that was your assumption because if the artists were more concerned with people listening to their music, i'd think they'd rather make it more obvious: like do the bandcamp option of "pay what you can".

 

i know odd future probably don't care whether people buy or download their music, do they also extend this mindset to those who wish to have their merchandise but can't afford it? would they also be offended if someone showed up to their concert not wearing their t-shirt or jersey because they couldn't get one due to budget constraints and forewent just taking it?