You break down there in the first paragraph. If "theft involves a transfer of an object that’s never supposed to be in your hands in the first place," and you include data, such as company secrets per your example, then you've just contradicted yourself when you say that doesn't apply to commercial music. Company secrets are the same as commercial music in that the company wants to control who has access to the information just as artists want to control who has access to their music. Both are subject to restrictions.
I point this out because I think you're on the right track (with your conclusion), but if it's not built on a solid foundation, it's likely to collapse.
Keep thinking about it.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
To my thinking, theft involves a transfer of an object that’s never supposed to be in your hands in the first place.
Not really. Suppose you developed a new operating system. You probably put a lot of time and work into developing that operating system and you'd probably expect to get paid for the sale of that OS.
Understandably, you'd probably be upset if 1 person bought your OS and then gave a 100 free copies to his friends.
canuck
· 4 years ago
jadegold,
your analogy doesn't hold. first off, an OS isn't broadcast on the radio or MTV every day. also, with an OS, there would probably be a prototype, so giving away said prototype to friends would probably be something Rob would want. once said OS was tested and complete he would then sell it with added/fixed features and support. therefore, you can't compare an OS system to music.
i agree with you rob, those who whine and bitch about music being "stolen" are just that - whiny, bitchy babies.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
your analogy doesn’t hold. first off, an OS isn’t broadcast on the radio or MTV every day
A radio station or TV outlet like MTV pays to use that song or video. They pay for that product to sell advertising.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
canuck said, "jadegold,
your analogy doesn’t hold. first off, an OS isn’t broadcast on the radio or MTV every day"
Actually Jadegold made a pretty good point. "Understandably, you’d probably be upset if 1 person bought your OS and then gave a 100 free copies to his friends." I recognize that, and have been questioning what makes music different. I haven't fully answered that question nor have I read any opinions that have answered that question.
i agree with you rob, those who whine and bitch about music being ""stolen" are just that - whiny, bitchy babies
Ha. Rob takes the view that sharing music (or giving it away to strangers, whathaveyou) is a form of theft. And besides, does Rob strike you as the type of person who would listen to jungle and dnb? :)
canuck
· 4 years ago
oops. rob didn't call anyone whiny or bitchy, that sentence came out wrong. i'm calling them whiny and bitchy. sorry rob.
canuck
· 4 years ago
dammit!
and it's not rob i need to apologize too, it's likwidshoe. good lord.
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
radio stations may pay for their music, but they allow us to listen to it for free and musicians know this.
And many places permit people to use computers for free.
i do not believe me listening to downloaded music is ""stealing" from anyone. i’m not making money off said music.
Irrelevant. If I steal a Picasso so that I may enjoy the painting while sipping fine wine--I'm not making any money from it, either. But it's still stealing.
if anything, should they end up liking the artist they will go to concerts and make other purchases.
Maybe, maybe not. I'll bet many people look at this issue as "why pay $14 for a CD, when I can download the same CD for free?"
Jadegold
· 4 years ago
Chad swings ....and misses.
Yes, sometimes musicians will provide their work gratis in order to attract an audience. But you have to ask, 'why do they wish to attract a following?'
The answer is evident. To generate sales.
It's no different than when a detergent company sends you a free sample in the mail or a restaurant sends you a discount coupon.
Chad Evans
· 4 years ago
Heh. Jade, why don't you actually read what I said. I actually stated the exact same thing you just did. Again, for the reading ignorant.
"Often bands send their music to radio stations for airtime in hopes of attracting consumers to purchase their album."
I do know a few reading comprehension classes you could sign up for, but that would defeat your purpose of being an instigator in all discussions rather than just a commenter.
canuck
· 4 years ago
first off, an OS is very different from music.
radio stations may pay for their music, but they allow us to listen to it for free and musicians know this. i do not believe me listening to downloaded music is "stealing" from anyone. i'm not making money off said music. also, should i make a copy and let someone else "sample" the music i do not believe they are "stealing" anything either. if anything, should they end up liking the artist they will go to concerts and make other purchases.
this may be taking this thread to another direction, but i have "beef" with the prices of cd's. (just to clarify, when an artist i enjoy comes out with a cd i do purchase it) when you compare the price of a cd to that of a movie, good lord. a movie gives you WAY more bang for your buck than a cd. perhaps if musicians are so concerned about their music being "stolen" they should consider their marketing strategy. make it worth paying all that money for a cd.
Chad Evans
· 4 years ago
"A radio station or TV outlet like MTV pays to use that song or video. They pay for that product to sell advertising."
Not necessarily though. Often bands send their music to radio stations for airtime in hopes of attracting consumers to purchase their album. In fact, I worked a school year at my university's radio station and not once did we ever pay for music. Now there may be a difference between student-run radio stations and corporate stations, but I'm not aware this is where the difference is.
Mark J
· 4 years ago
Musicians rarely make money from album sales. In fact, most bands are in debt to the record company until their 3rd or 4th album has been churned out. Even with iTunes, most of the money goes to Apple and the record companies.
canuck
· 4 years ago
And many places permit people to use computers for free.
the only place i can think of is a library and a library also allows you to read books for free. so what's your point? am i "stealing" said books for reading them?
how is me not making money of said music irrelevant? once again, your analogy sucks. if i go into a museum and steal a picasso i've done just that. if i happen to see a picasso laying around and look at it am i still "stealing" glances?
Maybe, maybe not. I’ll bet many people look at this issue as ""why pay $14 for a CD, when I can download the same CD for free?"
this may be true, for a small amount of people (poor college students, 12 year old kids), however, i would like to know of one band or persons who have suffered so badly because their music was "stolen" by the fans. so far, i've only heard of stories where musicians have been noticed because of people who like their music spread it around. bitching about your music being "stolen" is like biting the hand that feeds you.
Robin S.
· 4 years ago
Irrelevant. If I steal a Picasso so that I may enjoy the painting while sipping fine wineâ€"I’m not making any money from it, either. But it’s still stealing.
That's not really a fair analogy. What if you take a picture of the Picasso, blow it up so that it's an exact duplicate, and you enjoy that... while the original owner still has his Picasso? It's not stealing.
As far as the thing about local bands giving their music to local stations (or even paying the local station) to play, it's been my experience that these people aren't trying to sell albums. They're trying to get people to come and hear them perform.
In all honesty, I'm all for making sure that the performers that I enjoy are well compensated for the enjoyment I get from their music. I tend to frown on people downloading an entire album rather than going to buy it. On the other hand, I have no qualms whatsoever about sharing individual songs, because that tends to be helpful in growing a fan base than sharing an entire CD would be, I think. (Typically, if you're downloading a whole CD, you're already a fan...)
Conspirator
· 4 years ago
When artists take the time and energy, and have the talent to put 11-12 good songs on 1 CD, then I'll buy it.
You could go the iTunes route, I guess, and just get the songs that you want. Figure a typical CD costs around $13, and there are 12 songs on it. Thats about $1 per song. iTunes charges $.99 a song, and you don't get a CD, case, cover, or liner notes. I've never used iTunes, but aren't most of the songs mp3s? I'm sure they probably have a lossless format, but do you think that your average Joe is going to know what any of that means? I would guess that he's going to see "mp3" and download that, not knowing that what he is getting is a song that has much worse sound quality than a CD. So Apple is selling cheapened-up, digital (as opposed to physical) songs and charge about the same per song as a CD.
I came across this article http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7048053/ saying that music labels want to raise the price for "legal" music downloads. Are these record label execs. tired of having their servants washing their Ferraris, they need servants for their servants? Where do consumers draw the line and say enough? Music is supposed to be about the music and the fans, not corporations.
Time to get into indie music.
Robin S.
· 4 years ago
As I understand iTunes, buying a song from them is a real ripoff, since there are some restrictions to what you can do with the files you download. (Granted, you can get around those by burning a CD and ripping the music back to MP3 files, but it's a headache.) I won't buy any CD with "copy protection" that interferes with my putting the music on my MP3 player (or on an MP3 CD for my car), and I won't purchase any songs from a service that restricts my use of my music. In fact, I've cut back (by 80% or so) on the music I buy from RIAA-affiliated artists out of annoyance with the RIAA's policies (there are still two artists whose CDs I purchase anyway).
I don't file-share (with the exception of sending a few MP3s to a friend a while back, but all of those MP3s were from Magnatune, which made it legal), and I haven't downloaded a song since I went looking for an mp3 version of the Firefly theme song (and that was the first one I'd downloaded in years). There's no reason why my perfectly legal uses of purchased music should be infringed just to try to enforce rules that are fundamentally stupid anyway.
All Comments
I point this out because I think you're on the right track (with your conclusion), but if it's not built on a solid foundation, it's likely to collapse.
Keep thinking about it.
Not really. Suppose you developed a new operating system. You probably put a lot of time and work into developing that operating system and you'd probably expect to get paid for the sale of that OS.
Understandably, you'd probably be upset if 1 person bought your OS and then gave a 100 free copies to his friends.
your analogy doesn't hold. first off, an OS isn't broadcast on the radio or MTV every day. also, with an OS, there would probably be a prototype, so giving away said prototype to friends would probably be something Rob would want. once said OS was tested and complete he would then sell it with added/fixed features and support. therefore, you can't compare an OS system to music.
i agree with you rob, those who whine and bitch about music being "stolen" are just that - whiny, bitchy babies.
A radio station or TV outlet like MTV pays to use that song or video. They pay for that product to sell advertising.
your analogy doesn’t hold. first off, an OS isn’t broadcast on the radio or MTV every day"
Actually Jadegold made a pretty good point. "Understandably, you’d probably be upset if 1 person bought your OS and then gave a 100 free copies to his friends." I recognize that, and have been questioning what makes music different. I haven't fully answered that question nor have I read any opinions that have answered that question.
i agree with you rob, those who whine and bitch about music being ""stolen" are just that - whiny, bitchy babies
Ha. Rob takes the view that sharing music (or giving it away to strangers, whathaveyou) is a form of theft. And besides, does Rob strike you as the type of person who would listen to jungle and dnb? :)
and it's not rob i need to apologize too, it's likwidshoe. good lord.
And many places permit people to use computers for free.
i do not believe me listening to downloaded music is ""stealing" from anyone. i’m not making money off said music.
Irrelevant. If I steal a Picasso so that I may enjoy the painting while sipping fine wine--I'm not making any money from it, either. But it's still stealing.
if anything, should they end up liking the artist they will go to concerts and make other purchases.
Maybe, maybe not. I'll bet many people look at this issue as "why pay $14 for a CD, when I can download the same CD for free?"
Yes, sometimes musicians will provide their work gratis in order to attract an audience. But you have to ask, 'why do they wish to attract a following?'
The answer is evident. To generate sales.
It's no different than when a detergent company sends you a free sample in the mail or a restaurant sends you a discount coupon.
"Often bands send their music to radio stations for airtime in hopes of attracting consumers to purchase their album."
I do know a few reading comprehension classes you could sign up for, but that would defeat your purpose of being an instigator in all discussions rather than just a commenter.
radio stations may pay for their music, but they allow us to listen to it for free and musicians know this. i do not believe me listening to downloaded music is "stealing" from anyone. i'm not making money off said music. also, should i make a copy and let someone else "sample" the music i do not believe they are "stealing" anything either. if anything, should they end up liking the artist they will go to concerts and make other purchases.
this may be taking this thread to another direction, but i have "beef" with the prices of cd's. (just to clarify, when an artist i enjoy comes out with a cd i do purchase it) when you compare the price of a cd to that of a movie, good lord. a movie gives you WAY more bang for your buck than a cd. perhaps if musicians are so concerned about their music being "stolen" they should consider their marketing strategy. make it worth paying all that money for a cd.
Not necessarily though. Often bands send their music to radio stations for airtime in hopes of attracting consumers to purchase their album. In fact, I worked a school year at my university's radio station and not once did we ever pay for music. Now there may be a difference between student-run radio stations and corporate stations, but I'm not aware this is where the difference is.
the only place i can think of is a library and a library also allows you to read books for free. so what's your point? am i "stealing" said books for reading them?
how is me not making money of said music irrelevant? once again, your analogy sucks. if i go into a museum and steal a picasso i've done just that. if i happen to see a picasso laying around and look at it am i still "stealing" glances?
Maybe, maybe not. I’ll bet many people look at this issue as ""why pay $14 for a CD, when I can download the same CD for free?"
this may be true, for a small amount of people (poor college students, 12 year old kids), however, i would like to know of one band or persons who have suffered so badly because their music was "stolen" by the fans. so far, i've only heard of stories where musicians have been noticed because of people who like their music spread it around. bitching about your music being "stolen" is like biting the hand that feeds you.
That's not really a fair analogy. What if you take a picture of the Picasso, blow it up so that it's an exact duplicate, and you enjoy that... while the original owner still has his Picasso? It's not stealing.
As far as the thing about local bands giving their music to local stations (or even paying the local station) to play, it's been my experience that these people aren't trying to sell albums. They're trying to get people to come and hear them perform.
In all honesty, I'm all for making sure that the performers that I enjoy are well compensated for the enjoyment I get from their music. I tend to frown on people downloading an entire album rather than going to buy it. On the other hand, I have no qualms whatsoever about sharing individual songs, because that tends to be helpful in growing a fan base than sharing an entire CD would be, I think. (Typically, if you're downloading a whole CD, you're already a fan...)
You could go the iTunes route, I guess, and just get the songs that you want. Figure a typical CD costs around $13, and there are 12 songs on it. Thats about $1 per song. iTunes charges $.99 a song, and you don't get a CD, case, cover, or liner notes. I've never used iTunes, but aren't most of the songs mp3s? I'm sure they probably have a lossless format, but do you think that your average Joe is going to know what any of that means? I would guess that he's going to see "mp3" and download that, not knowing that what he is getting is a song that has much worse sound quality than a CD. So Apple is selling cheapened-up, digital (as opposed to physical) songs and charge about the same per song as a CD.
I came across this article http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7048053/ saying that music labels want to raise the price for "legal" music downloads. Are these record label execs. tired of having their servants washing their Ferraris, they need servants for their servants? Where do consumers draw the line and say enough? Music is supposed to be about the music and the fans, not corporations.
Time to get into indie music.
I don't file-share (with the exception of sending a few MP3s to a friend a while back, but all of those MP3s were from Magnatune, which made it legal), and I haven't downloaded a song since I went looking for an mp3 version of the Firefly theme song (and that was the first one I'd downloaded in years). There's no reason why my perfectly legal uses of purchased music should be infringed just to try to enforce rules that are fundamentally stupid anyway.