Howard the Duck

ah, but there's an element of gambling there

i do buy stuff which i have no idea of what it sounds like, just that it looked interesting

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Paedantic Basterd

I used to gamble with my money, and I was disappointed a lot. I'd rather gamble with my time.

Howard the Duck

i gamble with music

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

llllllllllllllllllll

Yes but music isn't an object to be stolen like a painting. Go on google images and look at any image, drag it on to your desktop, is that stealing? Jeff Tweedy (Wilco): "We never could understand what the problem was with people listening to your music. I thought that was the whole point." (I like quotes)

Paedantic Basterd

I can sort of see that side of the argument as well, and while I'm not interested in dabbling in the painting metaphor, I've got two questions I'd like to pose:

How is illegal filesharing that different from the function of a public library, wherein any number of people may borrow and read the same book free of charge?

How is purchasing used CDs of any benefit to an artist? If this is the basis by which we gauge something as ethical, then does purchasing used CDs fail the test, seeing as the artist/label receive no compensation for that transaction?

Howard the Duck

add to that, i'm so far from the country of origin of the artist, i have no idea how much of my money actually trickles down to them, if i'm buying locally-pressed copies

imported CDs, yes, i am paying the artist directly

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

rustie

If I will be asked I would suggest to have it on a physical aspect than to have it on my Computer, In time as I grow old I can let my future son to see what I am talking about than to have it on my computer. Let just say that I have a evidence to make them realize that Im not just telling stories to them.

mr dave

I know you're not interested in the painting thing but just entertain this next bit. You say you wouldn't buy the art without looking at it first, fine, how is that different than sampling the sound of the music on youtube? You don't need to download it. Same as you don't get to take a painting off a wall and make a high-def scan of it so you can hang it up in your hallway first right?

Now these other things are interesting.

On the public library thing, I seem to recall there being some sort of agreement in place between the publishers and whatever governing body handles the funding of the libraries to compensate accordingly. Kind of like how software developers charge differently for an individual vs. commercial license for use of their product. That, or it might be something like a collective union for the authors like SOCAN or ASCAP where the artist gets a royalty each time the book is signed out.

Here's the big thing with the library though, you have to bring the book back. Sure, you could photocopy it so you'd have a personal copy forever, but I'm pretty sure some people will get upset with that.

As for used discs, it's an indirect benefit to the artist. Sure they don't get direct financial benefit, but their material continues to move through more people. The secondary sale helps keep an ancillary distribution business in operation, a business that normally has a direct effect on supporting and boosting groups and artists that are on the verge of stepping up and out of their local stomping grounds. I've never seen a pawn shop / used cd store that didn't have a section for local DIY indie releases. A place like HMV won't bother with someone who isn't associated with an industry body like SOCAN.

----

I think the bigger issue is whether or not modern listeners care to support the arts as opposed to the artists.

__________________
i am the universe

Paedantic Basterd

I've got to run, so I'm just going to quickly address this part:

1) The sound quality of music on youtube is ****e.
2) The album format is absolutely vital to me and how much I enjoy an artist's work meaning

1. If I use youtube I may not find all the songs in the tracklist.
2. I would have to do a great deal extra work and research to load them and organize them.

3) I hate youtube as a website, and do my very best not to use it in my daily life. Generally if I am sent a youtube link, I will not even click it because I'm so irritated by the loading times, the advertisements, and the video quality.


I always delete the album after I hear it once, to save room on my drive and make temptation inconvenient, so I still don't see the harm.

mr dave

Agreed on the low quality on youtube, though HD quality is becoming more common. But a low quality replication doesn't change the composition of the music. You're still able to get an idea of what's being offered.

As for the necessity of the album format, that's a personal hangup and hardly a worthy justification. In my eyes that's like expecting to sample something from everything offered in a menu at a restaurant prior to ordering. It just doesn't work like that in my head, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Myself back in the day when it came to downloading tunes, there were 2 main elements that always got added into the search criteria live and b-side. As in material that was normally not made available for large scale commercial release. And at a time before there were tons of online distributors who could accommodate requests for musical imports.

At this point I get the impression that a lot of people are using a lot of personal justifications to absolve themselves of responsibility in this matter. Like my friends who still download everything because their cds were stolen back in the 90s. YOU personally might be downloading in a relatively ethical way, but we both know that's not the norm, and unfortunately, until your attitude does become the norm then I think alternatives need to be considered.

To me, streaming media is the best available solution at the moment.

__________________
i am the universe