Jump to content
IGNORED

What is your opinion on illegal downloading of music?


Recommended Posts

I'm interested as to how you feel about this as listeners of music. Do you disagree with it simply because it is illegal? Is it immoral? Do you believe that if a record company only makes 5 million instead of 10 because of illegal downloading, people shouldn't do it?

 

I believe that you should support unsigned, or smaller band because they would obviously need more revenue. But, when it comes to the big boys, who cares if they make a little less money? Shouldn't it just be about the music?

 

smile.gif

Link to comment

It is never ever just about "the music" - though of course, that is what all of us would like it to be. Making music is a job to musicians and the big record companies.

 

As with everything else, there is a price that must be paid to acquire that music, and regardless of how ridiculous the price may seem, or how much money a few artists and companies make off it, paying that price is the only morally and legal way to obtain that music. (Even inherited record albums were purchased at one point.)

 

Illegal downloading is just plain stealing. I do not think that many people would argue stealing is a moral or legal thing to do.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Pretty much agree with Paul, here.

 

I am glad that streaming services are becoming more ubiquitous so that I can give albums a try before paying for them. $10 a month or so seems like a fair price to see if albums are worth purchasing, but certainly artists need to get a fair cut of this. I hope that once paid streaming reaches a critical mass, artists will be adequately compensated.

 

I have a friend whose brother is in moderately successful band, but he still has to work construction between tours to pay the bills. Their album and ticket sales are just enough to break even with the tours.

Link to comment

I sometimes download illegally to hear albums I'm not familiar with or to hear remasters to see if they are worth buying. If I like them I buy them. If I don't, I delete the download.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

While it would be easy to just agree with Paul, the moral part is IMHO (as opposed to the legal) not really clear.

 

 

Moral versus legal.

 

Music companies are re-charging us for the privilege of use every time we desire to use another format or a slight variation.

They are clearly not interested in the physical form, otherwise they wouldn't argue that download can be stealing.

Music companies are thus charging multiple time for the same goods, or alternatively full price for a minor part of the same goods.

This is not the case with sheet music or use of music in public places.

 

Legislation is not up to speed with technical development and only takes the side of greedy large corporates and their lawyers.

Music is produced by musicians, but they have little say in this ridiculous battle.

 

 

The solution?

Why not go "Pay per. listen" / "Pay per view"?

Band-witdh is now high enough that we can stream even the highest resolution surround music and/or movies.

This will benefit consumers and musicians and everybody in the industry that creates any value.

 

Music companies have made themselves obsolete a long time ago!

We should cut them out of the loop before they find a way to corrupt this sound, convenient and legal way of trading audio/visual services.

 

 

I have a dream!

 

I have a dream

I have a dream that one day,

civil rights will actually be protected by the legal system,

putting citizens and fair play before corrupt politicians.

Building a world we can be proud of!

I have a dream

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Genelec 5 x 8260A + 7271A sub
Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

iPhone SE 2 ->  Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile” at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/digipete

Link to comment

You have a point there Pete. I think the best analogy at present it to treat music like a book, with reasonable licensing policies. If you buy a physical book, then you can read it, store it, sell it, loan it, or do anything you want with it. If you want a second copy of the book in a different format, say a paperback instead of a hardback, you still have to buy that second copy.

 

I think if you buy a DSD copy of a song, you should be able to do all the above, and also be able to transcode that song into any format you like - but only for your own use. You cannot make a FLAC copy of a DSD download and then give it away, unless of course, you also give the person the original file and delete it from your systems.

 

It just seems like a little common sense would go a very long way in this subject area.

 

-Paul

 

 

While it would be easy to just agree with Paul, the moral part is IMHO (as opposed to the legal) not really clear.

 

 

Moral versus legal.

 

Music companies are re-charging us for the privilege of use every time we desire to use another format or a slight variation.

They are clearly not interested in the physical form, otherwise they wouldn't argue that download can be stealing.

Music companies are thus charging multiple time for the same goods, or alternatively full price for a minor part of the same goods.

This is not the case with sheet music or use of music in public places.

 

Legislation is not up to speed with technical development and only takes the side of greedy large corporates and their lawyers.

Music is produced by musicians, but they have little say in this ridiculous battle.

 

 

The solution?

Why not go "Pay per. listen" / "Pay per view"?

Band-witdh is now high enough that we can stream even the highest resolution surround music and/or movies.

This will benefit consumers and musicians and everybody in the industry that creates any value.

 

Music companies have made themselves obsolete a long time ago!

We should cut them out of the loop before they find a way to corrupt this sound, convenient and legal way of trading audio/visual services.

 

 

I have a dream!

 

I have a dream

I have a dream that one day,

civil rights will actually be protected by the legal system,

putting citizens and fair play before corrupt politicians.

Building a world we can be proud of!

I have a dream

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Thanks Paul, but it is much more than that.

 

I am paying full price for every single format upgrade I am making.

The music industry is ipso facto using the formats against us!

That may have made sense pre IT and internet, but now it is ridiculous.

 

 

My journey so far:

 

Cassette Tape (Pre recorded)

Reel - to - reel (Pre recorded)

LP

CD

SACD

DVD-audio

Download PCM / DSD

Blu-ray Pure Audio

 

I have many albums that I have in 2 to more formats, yet I have to pay full market price on every single one.

This seems increasingly unreasonable and exploitative!

It also makes the complaints about pirating ring more and more hollow.

 

 

Who does better???

 

Streaming services like Qobus I suppose is better, but only covers a little and only in stereo.

I would prefer a completely open (source) market for "Pay per listen".

 

 

Lindberg Lyd is my absolute favourite and market leader in both solution and quality - despite being a small company.

 

Example:

 

REMOTE GALAXY by Flint Juventino Beppe

 

Pure Audio Blu-ray containing:

 

STEREO 192kHz/24bit

5.1 SURROUND 192kHz/24bit

7.1 SURROUND 96kHz/24bit

9.1 Auro-3D 96kHz/24bit

 

+ mShuttle that gives me additionally:

 

FLAC Stereo 96kHz/24bit

WAV Stereo 44kHz/16bit

MP3 (320 kbps) 44kHz/16bit

 

Cost EUR 24 / USD 33 including Danish VAT (25%)

 

That is good service and a reasonable way to help costumers bridge the different formats now and in the future.

Some albums has been released with a combination of Blu-ray Pure Audio and a hybrid SACD at the same price.

 

The recordings are absolute world class, and Morten Lindberg has a total of 17 Grammy nominations since 2006.

I make a point to buy every singe album that I will remotely like to support this unique company.

The disks also make great gifts to fellow sufferers of the Audiophile bug.

 

 

The whole music industry has a lot to learn about quality and fairness from this little Norwegian David.

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Genelec 5 x 8260A + 7271A sub
Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

iPhone SE 2 ->  Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile” at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/digipete

Link to comment

Looking at all the various versions of Dark Side Of The Moon, Rumours, The Who Live At Leeds etc in my collection I do feel ripped off in some way.

 

On the other hand streaming services like Spotify and Wimp HiFi give me most (not all) music I want to listen and explore for affordable money.

 

Why should I steal music and betray musicians ?

Link to comment

I think the obvious answer is that it is wrong to illegally download music as a way to avoid paying for ownership.

 

I personally download quite a bit of music which does make me feel guilty to a point. On the other hand, I feel strongly that the music business has had a big hand in creating the current environment. For a couple years at least, I was paying for every download I did. This was through a website in Russia, which unfortunately I can't remember the name of. It used to run around $3 or $4 for a full cd download in 320 kBps ogg format. You could download individual songs or full cd's. You were charged basically for the size of the download. Lower res was smaller download, therefore lower cost. Higher res was larger, therefore higher cost. The selection was incredible. The web site itself was amazingly professional. The owners of the site always claimed they were paying proper royalties to the artists but who knows how true. I didn't mind paying for what I was downloading. It seemed like a very reasonable cost. I always wondered why some record company or music service or the like, didn't come forward and buy the site. I still haven't found anything like it as far as ease of use, selection, cost, etc. Then my son introduced me to the world of torrents. Around the same time, this Russian site started having problems. They were experiencing longer and longer periods of downtime, which I'm sure was because they were coming under attack for what they were doing. Torrents allowed me to download lossless flac files for no cost. I never went back.

 

I used to buy cd's of the music I downloaded from the Russian site in lossy format that I liked. The problem with that became an issue of having to pay ridiculous shipping charges as more and more had to be purchased online as cd/record stores were going out of business. I honestly felt I was the one being ripped off. Out of the $25 or so that it cost to get the cd in my hand, I'm sure the artist was lucky to see 50 cents of that. I've found that some of the music I like is available direct from the artist's website with usually some kind of pay what you want system. I think this is great and I use this method wherever possible. Unfortunately, even with this, some bands end up discouraging legal purchase by trying to charge what I feel is too much. I refuse to pay over $10 to download a cd that I will never physically own.

 

I know many will be thinking of me as a total thief. I can understand and even agree with that to a point. I just wanted to provide an honest perspective from someone who does download illegally. I will say that over the years I probably purchased 1000 lps and thousands of cd's.

 

A final point, I recently heard or read an interview with someone in the music business. They made what I thought was a very interesting point. They said that prior to the internet and downloading, bands toured to advertise their records or cd's. They made the majority of their money from sales of their product. Now, bands/artists release product as advertising for their tours. They make most of their money from touring.

 

Bill

Link to comment

I just spent $40 with Acoustic Sounds and HDtracks to download two Cream albums that I had previously purchased both as LP's and CD's under the guise that these new "hi-def" remasters would sound better. Actually, they are dynamic range compressed and do not sound any better at all. Caveat emptor, I suppose, but who is stealing from whom?

Link to comment

The other issue of illegal downloading is obtaining files conducted via a legit financial transaction across country borders contravening the distribution rights of the seller.

 

This situation has developed due to an intolerance of the current distribution model which clearly just doesn't work. I don't follow the model where the same music is available in one country and not another purely for commercial money reasons. This harks back to the 1960-1980's in much of eastern Europe where music was smuggled in under the 'prohibitive' goods ban, on equal footing with weapons and drugs.

 

As an example, Acoustic Sounds has a special Canadian friendly section for downloads, yet if you buy the SACD, you can have it shipped to Canada or anywhere else. Where is the sanity with this model? It's not the vendor's idea for sure.

 

I remember walking into a record store in the 70's to find an album that wasn't in stock, and the store would order it in. This could take a week, or if it had to come from overseas, several weeks by sea freight or you were told, that album doesn't come here. With the internet today you find the same album on dozens of sites and whether it's in stock, immediately. In the 1960-1980's the list of recorded music was in the millions, the corner record store had no hop to have everything is stock, it is not possible. Thirty years on, the same catalog is available, but the amount of recorded music has reached the stratosphere, no one vendor can physically store all this music in their corner store anymore. People are annoyed that they may have to wait for their music, so they seek alternatives. Wow, music can be downloaded and at no cost! Two thumbs up here, the genie's out of the bottle. It is impossible now to shut down the torrent sites, like all pirate operations, they can very quickly find servers and spawn.

 

Legislation doesn't work, a VPN overcomes this issue in one simple step anyway.

 

lasker98 raises the point that I have also heard from an interview with "Celtic Woman". They are mostly on tour all year round, they derive more income from touring than they do with the minuscule royalties from recorded music.

 

This is an interesting interview about record companies and illegal downloads. Start at 6:45 into the video and see the response from the recording industry about artists that startup themselves on the internet. The recording industry does us all a favour by filtering out the music we don't like. Oh dear.

 

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment

It is indeed theft. Turn it around the other way. If you had intellectual ownership over something which constituted your livelihood, put food on your table, paid the bills, how happy would you be if you knew that a proportion of the people who were out in the world using/enjoying it had ripped you off to obtain it? And if you were successful, how rich would you need to be before you were happy that people were stealing from you?

 

That the labels have, do and will continue to not only rip us off but blame honest consumers for their woes (like when their elephant choking profits go down when people buy less of the crap they overcharge for) is not a good enough reason to steal from the artist. We should refrain from buying formats which we are uncomfortable paying for and take as much care as we reasonably can to establish providence and quality (by using resources such as this forum) before taking a flyer on yet another version of our favourite album. If the sound quality is rubbish the album deserves not to sell. But ripping off the artist is something that there is no excuse for.

Link to comment
It's theft, plain and simple.

 

 

Agree!

The music industry executives should be thrown in jail,

the key thrown away,

and the market set free.

 

 

;-)

 

 

 

I have a dream!

I have a dream

I have a dream that one day,

civil rights will actually be protected by the legal system,

putting citizens and fair play before corrupt politicians.

Building a world we can all be proud of!

I have a dream

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Genelec 5 x 8260A + 7271A sub
Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

iPhone SE 2 ->  Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile” at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/digipete

Link to comment

Yes, I do see your point. (And I bought the stereo DSD128 download version, interesting music!)

 

From that, I can transcode into any other stereo version of course. With you, I remember you are much more into multichannel stuff, and that is not any easy transcode to stereo for most people. At least I would wrestle with it a lot, with no assurance of success.

 

It still looks to me like it is almost the difference between buying a physical book and an audio tape of the same book, and should both be paid for, but with vendors getting wiser, maybe not. :)

 

 

 

Thanks Paul, but it is much more than that.

 

I am paying full price for every single format upgrade I am making.

The music industry is ipso facto using the formats against us!

That may have made sense pre IT and internet, but now it is ridiculous.

 

 

My journey so far:

 

Cassette Tape (Pre recorded)

Reel - to - reel (Pre recorded)

LP

CD

SACD

DVD-audio

Download PCM / DSD

Blu-ray Pure Audio

 

I have many albums that I have in 2 to more formats, yet I have to pay full market price on every single one.

This seems increasingly unreasonable and exploitative!

It also makes the complaints about pirating ring more and more hollow.

 

 

Who does better???

 

Streaming services like Qobus I suppose is better, but only covers a little and only in stereo.

I would prefer a completely open (source) market for "Pay per listen".

 

 

Lindberg Lyd is my absolute favourite and market leader in both solution and quality - despite being a small company.

 

Example:

 

REMOTE GALAXY by Flint Juventino Beppe

 

Pure Audio Blu-ray containing:

 

STEREO 192kHz/24bit

5.1 SURROUND 192kHz/24bit

7.1 SURROUND 96kHz/24bit

9.1 Auro-3D 96kHz/24bit

 

+ mShuttle that gives me additionally:

 

FLAC Stereo 96kHz/24bit

WAV Stereo 44kHz/16bit

MP3 (320 kbps) 44kHz/16bit

 

Cost EUR 24 / USD 33 including Danish VAT (25%)

 

That is good service and a reasonable way to help costumers bridge the different formats now and in the future.

Some albums has been released with a combination of Blu-ray Pure Audio and a hybrid SACD at the same price.

 

The recordings are absolute world class, and Morten Lindberg has a total of 17 Grammy nominations since 2006.

I make a point to buy every singe album that I will remotely like to support this unique company.

The disks also make great gifts to fellow sufferers of the Audiophile bug.

 

 

The whole music industry has a lot to learn about quality and fairness from this little Norwegian David.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I am paying full price for every single format upgrade I am making.

The music industry is ipso facto using the formats against us!

That may have made sense pre IT and internet, but now it is ridiculous.

 

Much of the debate here has focused on artists rights and royalties, but that's a small percentage of the purchase price. Record labels span the range from a few mega conglomerates like Universal, Sony, etc, to many literally mom and pop label operations. In all cases, be it a small label like 2L, or a division within a mega, there's an infrastructure that performs the technical duties associated with either the original production, or the re-issue/re-master. The expense of that would boggle your mind, and that's over and above whatever the artist receives.

 

So, if you disapprove of paying again for a re-issue, but want the music, steal it. Do that enough, and those pesky gouging labels will take the hint, and go away.

Link to comment
Much of the debate here has focused on artists rights and royalties, but that's a small percentage of the purchase price. Record labels span the range from a few mega conglomerates like Universal, Sony, etc, to many literally mom and pop label operations. In all cases, be it a small label like 2L, or a division within a mega, there's an infrastructure that performs the technical duties associated with either the original production, or the re-issue/re-master. The expense of that would boggle your mind, and that's over and above whatever the artist receives.

 

So, if you disapprove of paying again for a re-issue, but want the music, steal it. Do that enough, and those pesky gouging labels will take the hint, and go away.

 

 

Absolutely true, and I don't think it is the record companies - in specific the small guys doing yeoman service to audiophiles everywhere, who are to blame for all the hostility. A lot of it comes from the utterly cutthroat tactics of the RIAA. Most of it, perhaps *all* of it. They are really hurting people.

 

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
The thing I don't get is why websites like pirate bay are not banned. If they are illegal they should not be operating. But I have a feeling the legal aspects are quite complicated.

 

They operate in countries which do not respect US Copyright Law.

Link to comment
Agree!

The music industry executives should be thrown in jail,

the key thrown away,

and the market set free.

 

You might not feel that way if you were a professional musician.

 

 

Funny!

All my professional musician friends feels exactly like that.

In fact, an opera singer friend just chose to crowd fund a CD -> problem solved!!!

 

 

When was monopolies ever a good thing for price, quality and availability?

 

The music monopolies must be broken.

Example: The US broke the American Tobacco Company (known as the “Tobacco Trust”) into smaller pieces in 1907, as The Trust dominated the world market in a way that removed competition.

 

Back then US legislators had a natural and historical aversion to monopolies.

While US is still regarded as a leading force many places, the legal and political system in the US is now hardly anything to be looked up to.

And while things seems a little more reasonable in the EU, absolutely nothing has been done to deal with the large music conglomerates.

Anti-trust laws seems powerless against these international companies.

 

The US had the power to set things right in 1907, not so any longer :-/

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Genelec 5 x 8260A + 7271A sub
Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

iPhone SE 2 ->  Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile” at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/digipete

Link to comment

You know, I hate to say it, and I am sure that nobody here is really illegally downloading music files from the internet.

 

But if, by some utterly unlikely chance you just might have happened to do so, once, in your past, then - please don't post that you have done that. It really doesn't make sense, and nobody really wants to get a lawsuit filed against them, or have to put Chris through the rigors of Discovery.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
I admit it...I stole music from Led Zeppelin. Fifty thrashes with a wet noodle.

 

 

And let he who is without sin throw the first rock!

 

 

However . . .

Legal systems are not set in stone.

Let's help our politicians and courts change them to better serve society.

It's long overdue!

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Genelec 5 x 8260A + 7271A sub
Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

iPhone SE 2 ->  Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile” at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/digipete

Link to comment
You know, I hate to say it, and I am sure that nobody here is really illegally downloading music files from the internet.

 

But if, by some utterly unlikely chance you just might have happened to do so, once, in your past, then - please don't post that you have done that. It really doesn't make sense, and nobody really wants to get a lawsuit filed against them, or have to put Chris through the rigors of Discovery.

 

-Paul

 

Not to mention that the NSA may be listening.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...