Allofmp3.com

What does this mean? Are you saying that you feel no guilt for not compensating artists? Or that you feel a little bit guilty because you know they should be compensated, but that you aren’t?[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought artists made a pittance on CDs and publishers make the big cash. Isn’t this why most bands have super high priced tours, to cash in on their popularity in a way that goes into their own pockets?

But I don’t want to look like I’m condoning breaking copyright law. Downloading russian music is illegal, bottom line. Remember kids, before we had copyright law we only got nasty free music like the works of Motzart, Beethoven, and Bach. Without copyright, we’d have no boy bands at all and that would be horrible! :twisted:

It might be illegal for Brad Genz to threaten the President, but seeing as how Joel doesn’t have an entire cabinet lined up in front of him, a Secret Service guarding him, and the FBI policing the internet for anyone threatening him…

Could someone please firebomb his car and [size=7]kick[/size] his dog for me? Pretty please? Thanks.

Edit: Also, for what it’s worth, most bands make anywhere from $1-3 per cd sold. High touring costs are nobody’s fault but an artist who is hell-bent upon making as much money as possible and the venues who want to ensure a certain amount of profit. Sometimes an artist trades ticket sales in lieu of merchandise profit, sometimes it’s the other way around. Either way, a lot of bands get by charging $15-30 for a show with two openers and are happy with what they make and some bands feel that they can’t even scrape by at $60 a ticket with no openers and are terrified at making less than a cool couple million a year.

Firebombing my car might be federally-protected free speech, but killing my dog is just mean.

I just feel like I can’t afford to pay what is the “legal price” for access to generations of music. I’m not saying that my ethics are iron-clad, but I am trying to explain how I feel about it in a practical sense. I don’t feel bad downloading music for a cheap price I would otherwise not enjoy at all, especially when it could be contributing to the overall wealth of the artist if the market were allowed to dictate the price of the music.

Edit: Also, for what it’s worth, I do buy some music. Usually from live shows, alternate online downloading systems, or (rarely) from retail outlets.

Here’s a question, though. Of those of you who think I’m an awful crook, how many of you own iPods (or other large-capacity players)? How much did it cost you to legally fill them?

Actually, I was making the statement of “Don’t use facile rationalization of capitalism as a justification for piracy.” Piracy pretty much screws the idea of capitalism in the ear when it’s not looking and laughs riotously as it shambles away.

If you want to promote artistic support of music through merchandising and concert venues only (and shoulder some part of the responsibility for pushing the music companies even farther in that direction, including the type of artists it tends to select out), that’s your business. But own up to the consequences, at least to yourself, eh?

I said kick your dog, and I’ve adjusted my post above so that the visually retarded (I would say impaired, but I believe that in your case it is selective) can read what I said.

Actually, I was trying to make a point. It seems like you have something against the RIAA. Which is awesome - they deserve to go down the tube as much as anyone. That said, they never firebombed your car or kicked your dog, so I don’t see where the “I have a right to steal, but I’m going to support other criminals while doing it, as well!” logic comes from.

And Joel, you once again missed the point. What we have a problem with is you claiming that paying a group of thieves to steal music for you so you can download it easier is perfectly acceptable because the RIAA asked for it. We don’t claim that downloading music from Kazaa or whatnot is right, we don’t act like it’s a crusade, and we’re not actively supporting a group of people who are actively profiting off of selling off mp3s that they stole for free.

This is intellectual property privateering. Come on.

I try to support artists by seeing them in person whenever possible. I had to draw the line at Eric Clapton’s $800 seats in Wash DC. (I think the cheapest were still $140, but geez! I’m, uh, too thrifty for that!)

Two points: First of all, calling me retarded is nice of you, especially after talking about firebombing my car and kicking my dog. I’m trying to be civil, and you aren’t. Whatever, it’s the internet, but at least I’m trying.

And the other point I’m making is that it is worth it to me to download music from a nice service like AllofMP3. They are providing a service that is better than Kazaa, so I use it. I guess your point is that downloading from Kazaa is better than downloading from a pay service. If it’s all stealing to you, I guess I don’t see why it matters since it ultimately violates your ethical code either way, but okay.

And I have no crusade, except that I really like their service, and am recommending it (and explaining why I use it, relatively guilt-free).

Exactly Cool Breeze. When I grab the occasional song (yes joel i can fill an ipod with music legally ripped), i don’t think I am pirating it, or setting the information inside free. I am stealing. Pretty simple.

Chet

You’re not stealing, you’re violating copyright. Whether the two are equivalent ethical offenses is of course subjective. The legality is not.

Huh? Capitalism is the economic model in which large amounts of capital are gathered together in order to fund a large scale enterprise, which presumably will then deliver profits to the original providers of capital. Capitalism as a system doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any particular venture, or even about the welfare of entire economic sector.

Piracy may or may not be stealing, but it sure as hell doesn’t screw capitalism in the ear while having its way with its glory hole while pissing on Abe Lincoln’s grave, or whatever over-the-top metaphor you choose to use.

I own an 20 gig iPod. I filled it with entirely legally bought CDs. Most of those CDs were bought in the last 8 years, and even if I knew there was only one good song on the CD, at least that money was going to the people that made it and not to Russian fucking pirates

If you were trying to make a point about how clever you are to have saved so much money by filling your iPod with pirated music, I don’t see it. To me, it’s as repugnant as someone showing me a house filled with beautiful furniture that they confide was all bought off the back of a running truck

That definition of capitalism would fit communism as well. Large amounts of capital are gathered together by the state in order to fund large scale state enterprise, which delivers profits to the state, which then goes on to distribute out those profits back to the citizens. The key facet of capitalism is that the means of production and distribution are privately held and exist in a free market.

I can’t dig on your simile, Gunmetal, because music isn’t a commodity like furniture. It’s more like booze, which I’ll explain in a moment.

In my mind, the moral ambiguity of downloading music relies mostly on matters of proportion and vestigiality. Proportion regards how much music I buy and how much I download for free. I buy two or three CDs a month, I D/L a CD’s worth (18 songs) every two or three months, at worst. My friend OTOH, he doesn’t buy CDs anymore, he just D/Ls all day long and anxiously asks me why the Hell I’m not. Proportion works in other areas. Sometimes I score free movie tickets, or I know a dude who can get me free show tickets. OMG TICKET PIRATE. I know a bartender who gives me free drinks. OMG DRINK PIRATE. What a dick, I obviously should have refused those free tickets and drinks out of respect for the respective industries and not been such a grubby skulking thief. Large-scale wanton music piracy could maybe crash the business, but whateevr amount is going on now hasn’t yet and doesn’t seem to. Perhaps it could be argued, but I just can’t help but remember when the film industry wailed in the streets after VCRs came out, and cable TV. Decades later, the film industry (nor, more precisely, the theater industry) isn’t dead, despite advancing technology in copying and home viewing equipment and quicker turn-around times for rentals.

Vestigiality, or if you prefer, luxury, refers to the notion that any music I D/L isn’t music I’m ever going to buy, so to me and me alone, not my friend, I haven’t ripped anybody off. You can tell Lars Ulrich I wouldn’t D/L and listen to his shit music for fucking free, anyway, if you see him. If Gordon Lightfoot (or his family - is he dead?) can’t make his house payment because I D/Led The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald then Hell, I am sorry, and economics now scare me even more than they did in college, because that’s a butterfly effect to rival any. Furthermore and to my current point, fuck Gordon, because I wouldn’t have ever fucking EVER bought a Gordon Lightfoot CD just to get that song. Neither would I be clamoring for injustices from DA MAN if they made D/Ling music really illegal, like “FBI scoures the internet and nerfs Kazaa and related sites” illegal.

The bottom line is: what I’m doing specifically with D/Led music is technically as bad as my friend (in the binary sense of Downloads/Doesn’t Download) but if everyone the world over had my habits (D/Ling occasionally, and only stuff I wouldn’t otherwise buy), the music industry wouldn’t even approach the red. Just like getting some free drinks doesn’t crash the liquor industry.

Also, I have a big butt.

[size=1]Stupid double-posting IE foul-up mmmmgmbgmbgbmbmgbm[/size]

Careful, Bill. You might make Joel’s head explode. These are such foreign concepts to someone who has taken it upon himself to liberate the record industry by paying less to a Russian “firm” than he would iTunes because he doesn’t even have the money to pay a dollar a song yet still feels the need to legitimately pay for the music he wants to listen to, regardless of who he’s paying.

I will now completely derail this thread with a Koontzian analogy: What Joel is doing is a lot like paying a hooker on one corner to go down on you, slapping her in the face, and then raping her pimp.

EOM QED LOL OMG.

Well, in the end I did use allofmp3.com to grab a few songs because iTunes didn’t have them. iTunes has been my choice for acquiring music since early this year though, other than two tangible CDs purchased. I imagine I’ll keep using the rest of my $5 credit at allofmp3 for those occasional songs that iTunes doesn’t have, but I’ll stick with iTunes for all the music I can.

There’s a concept no one thought of before, comparing consumable items with non-consumable items. Flesh that out a bit by pretending that theatres and bars are directly involved with the makers of their respective products instead of purchasing the goods beforehand. Puts a convoluted issue right into perspective, Koontz.

Quick, put the entire thing in caps to emphasize just how idiotic it is.

I DON’T LIKE THIS THREAD CLOSE IT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INTEREST ME

BS ALERTBS ALERTBS ALERTBS ALERT*

Only the cream of the crop make that, and normally even that is eaten by advances. Most artist make pennies per cd even when they front the entire recording costs themselves. Which is normally taken by their agent in fees. They operate on the idea they give their music away on CD in hope that fans will go to concerts so they can earn a living.

You should pay for all your music (I do) but don’t do it under the false assumption that the artist who made the music you are buying is seeing any of that money.

Sure, fine, whatever. Nevermind. I’m wrong. I’m ranting out bullshit. Blah blah blah. etc. etc. etc.

Believe what you want. I don’t care.