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

[Joyrex]

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.

If you cannot afford to own the music, then streaming it (from the artists' bandcamp/soundcloud page/pandorica/iTunes Radio/etc. is the route to go - the reality is most people don't listen to 75-80% of the music they have pirated, and only listen to a small percentage (which gets even smaller given how obnoxiously large some pirated music collections can get) due to an overwhelming overabundance of choice - there's too much to listen to because someone heard one song and download the entire artists' discography because it was easy to do.

 

These days, it's so easy to legally purchase and download music, there's really no excuse not to support the artists.

[gmanyo]

I guess, personally I'm not that concerned that I can't afford the music, but I have spoken with artists and have heard other artists (in interviews and such) who have explicitly said that they'd rather people steal their music than not listen at all (again, I do actually purchase music, and have actually paid for free music because I liked it). Often it's due to working with a record label, although here you could argue that if the record label treats their artists right, then the record label deserves the money even if the artist wants you to download it. I think that I would rather have people steal my music than never listen to it, even if I were selling it. On a personal level, I would probably spend more money on music if I downloaded it, because I would want to buy more things from more artists, although I can't say that the same would be true of most people.

 

My Odd Future example was a different point entirely, I just like their marketing strategy. They offer a product that, even disregarding ethics, is worth buying because it is both a style statement and something that makes you un-naked and thus more fit for public activities. To an amoral person, there's no reason not to download music, but there might be a reason to buy a shirt. It's a good business model, because I can't download a hat (at least not until 3D printing takes over), so I have to buy the product in order to enjoy it. In addition to that, the people buying it can feel like they have something that they actually needed to pay for. And it's great for promoting your music.

 

If I ever get anywhere as a musician, I want to sell shirts that come with a usb copy of my album.

[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.

If you cannot afford to own the music, then streaming it (from the artists' bandcamp/soundcloud page/pandorica/iTunes Radio/etc. is the route to go - the reality is most people don't listen to 75-80% of the music they have pirated, and only listen to a small percentage (which gets even smaller given how obnoxiously large some pirated music collections can get) due to an overwhelming overabundance of choice - there's too much to listen to because someone heard one song and download the entire artists' discography because it was easy to do.

 

These days, it's so easy to legally purchase and download music, there's really no excuse not to support the artists.

 

Yeah, streaming works, although if I pay for stuff I prefer to own it which is why I opt for paying for music directly even though it means less music.

[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*

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.

 

i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done. the distinction is because art's value is hard to quantify, and i don't think it's naturally tradeable, it's just been raped into being tradeable. you don't exploit anyone by having a copy of his music, unless you presume that he's naturally supposed to make some money off it.

[eugene]

 

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

 

the cds and any other physical format of music for that matter doesn't really have a reason to exists in the last 15 years, but it's a different discussion i guess. i was talking about making music in general as labor.

[eugene]

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.

it's wrong because you can't attach a value on something like that, it's the same for novelists, but the value of other professions you mention are very much quantifiable. music is not work in any way, if it seems like work then it isn't really music, in my view.

[Guest totemcrackerjack]

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis. I do buy albums when I have the means to do so, but p2p is an absolute god-send. I wouldn't know about ANY of the music I listen to now if it weren't for trackers. Am I a bad person because of it? Eh, I really don't care. I won't try to justify my torrenting except that I want to listen to more music without making an ultimatum concerning food v. flac.

[doublename]

torrent first, buy later.

[Nebraska]

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

[YO303]

isnt better to have the fan for life than not have that fan because he didn't buy the album?

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

Exactly. And I don't understand this whole angle that music is art and thus a professional market for it shouldn't exist. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

[BobDobalina]

Food and recorded music are very different commodities, juss sayin. This is a pretty thought-provoking and humorous article from a few years ago on forced artificial resource scarcity, or as the author likes to acronym it, FARTS

 

I've pretty much gone full digital these days, still buying the occasional cd, thoughy now only to immediately rip it as it would seem - definitely a couple of recent purchases that have never actually been played as a cd, which feels kinda weird. Otherwise it's a pretty even split between buying stuff I know I already (or almost certainly will) like - from blerp, bandcamp, etc. - and trawling slsk and other channels for new listens. Trying to be as ethical of a patron of the arts as possible yet pragmatic with these sort of things.

 

Also as a kid from the 80s entering the wide world of music nothing chuffed me more than hearing a song I thought was cool on the radio then spending what little allowance I had on a cassette of the album only to find out that the rest is total shit. Yeah fuck you Escape Club.

[Mellow U]

 

 

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

Exactly. And I don't understand this whole angle that music is art and thus a professional market for it shouldn't exist. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

 

+1

[gmanyo]

 

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that they think they deserve the music. Perhaps their actions imply as such, but nobody here has actually said they think that they deserve it. While I can't speak to the ethical righteousness of "torrent first, buy later", I do think that it leads to spending more money on music for certain people, so perhaps it could be argued from an ends-justify-the-means perspective.

 

The last albums I've downloaded (illegally) have been leaks, and I purchased them as soon as they came out (R Plus Seven and Ghettoville). I did also torrent Breaking Bad and one episode of Sherlock (bought most of the rest), and I'm not going to say that that was the right thing to do or anything, but I did it.

[Nebraska]

The reason I said deserve is because someone will still take something they can't afford.

 

Why else would you take something you can't afford legally?

 

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

[gmanyo]

I just don't think everyone who downloads music has a sense of entitlement to it, it's just that they don't really care whether they deserve it or not. I think these are different things. I mean, I don't feel like I deserve much of the music that I paid for, but I sure am glad I have it.

[Guest fiznuthian]

Foil explained it all already:

[foresense]

i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done. the distinction is because art's value is hard to quantify, and i don't think it's naturally tradeable, it's just been raped into being tradeable. you don't exploit anyone by having a copy of his music, unless you presume that he's naturally supposed to make some money off it.

it's exploitative if you don't agree with the price someone charges, yet you take it anyway.

 

you need to look at the person behind the music. help flourish those that make your life better. such a basic courtesy.

[marf]

i do download stuff, but most of the stuff is by dead people or very rich people. im not going to rationalize it though. it's thievery. i hope someday i make enough money to be on the up and up

[manmower]

Buy first, torrent later IMO.

[calx]

Yes, I always buy if I can but sometimes it's just not available to purchase... Steinvord is a classic case.

[eugene]

Buy first, torrent later IMO.

actually did this once, paid for some grouper album on boomkat but went on what.cd to download it because it was much easier and faster.

[eugene]

 

i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done. the distinction is because art's value is hard to quantify, and i don't think it's naturally tradeable, it's just been raped into being tradeable. you don't exploit anyone by having a copy of his music, unless you presume that he's naturally supposed to make some money off it.

it's exploitative if you don't agree with the price someone charges, yet you take it anyway.

 

you need to look at the person behind the music. help flourish those that make your life better. such a basic courtesy.

 

but you see there is something distorted about how it works, a musicians makes a tune spending particular amount of time and energy on it but the labels charge money for every copy, and expect people to pay an unlimited amount of money for what was a limited effort.

[Friendly Foil]

Foil explained it all already:

 

People can't handle the raw data

[manmower]

 

Buy first, torrent later IMO.

actually did this once, paid for some grouper album on boomkat but went on what.cd to download it because it was much easier and faster.

 

I do it all the time, to get files for stuff I buy on vinyl for instance, or even for CDs. Why waste my time and wear out my CD drive when someone has already done a perfect rip.

 

I don't buy the 'try before you buy' excuse anyway, with all the streaming options available there's hardly any need to download a local copy of a release if you're just checking it out.