376 replies to this topic

[Drew]

This follows on from the off-topic discussion in the DAC thread. The question of downloading torrents (and continuing to consume the downloaded content), and whether it is okay.

Personally, I don’t mind it in as far as way of sampling music….but if one enjoys the music, and wishes to continue to consume it then it should be paid for, in one way or another imho. I’ve seen a number of attempts to justify it, none of these have been particularly persuasive from my POV. I do think the freely accessible nature of it desensitises from the fact that it is technically stealing.

Also, I understand that some artists have expressed a lack of concern (or possibly even encouragement) regarding the subject. I suspect that this comes from an acceptance that this will happen…so why fight it etc.

It occurs to me that this whole concept (consuming art without paying for it) links closely into the wider ‘sense of entitlement’ that is so apparent in today’s society. You know…it’s the “I want it, I want it now, and I don’t want to pay for it” idea.

[Luc]

I like it as a way of sampling and it's saved me hundreds of dollars in dud CD's as before I'd window shop and grab stuff or grab stuff relying on a reviewer's taste instead of mine. Being able to sit back here in my PC chair and listen before I buy or listen and grab all the free stuff available(legit) is just great.

Torrents? Well if a mate gives you a lend of a HDD and you pick and chose what you like and want and some of it is pirated, what do you do, is it any different to the days of recording cassettes off LP's?

[Drizt]

A public poll is going to sway the results of this poll

I guess the other point is some people will no it isn't right (technically) they will still do it.

[Drew]

A public poll is going to sway the results of this poll
.

Why should it?

[Luc]

Because no one wants to admit that they're a pirate that's why:D

Edit: 100% skewed towards sampling at this stage.

[Drizt]

I would have thought that would be obvious ????

Not many people are going to admit that it is alright due to the fact it opens them up for judgement.

[Drew]

I would have thought that would be obvious ????

Not many people are going to admit that it is alright due to the fact it opens them up for judgement.

Cripes...that's pretty weak. If you are going to do it, then sack up and admit it.

[houdinifangs]

I voted no for aesthetic not moral reasons. For me downloading anything and everything is artless.

[davidsss]

I find torrenting a great way to sample music.

For the artists I think this is a difficult one. Yes, there will be lots of copies of your music out there that no-one paid for. But would they have bought it anyway? I suspect only a small proportion of the downloaders would have purchased the music, most would have just gone without like we all did when we were younger. Against this you have the exposure which will lead to sales to those who like to own the music and I would think that you would end up with a net increase in sales. Furthermore, the promotion which you get from your music being pirated can help ticket sales to concerts and the like. Given that the actual artists make more proportionally money from concert tickets than from music sales (the record companies take the lion's share) there is a good argument that the artist will make more money if their music is pirated. No idea whether anyone has attempted to crunch the numbers on this though.

I have certainly discovered a lot of good music from suggestions here and elsewhere and bought it after hearing a torrented MP3. I've also avoided a lot of music which is not to my taste.

DS

[Drizt]

Cripes...that's pretty weak. If you are going to do it, then sack up and admit it.

I would say you are being naive and unrealistic there.

[DoggieHowser]

Some related points: is it OK to download a remastered version if you already have the original CD? What if you have the "downloaded" copies on LP or (non hybrid) SACD? Does it make it ok?

FWIW, I think Apple is "legitimising" downloads with iTunes match. Pretty ballsy I thought, but at the moment, it's still limited to lossy AAC so I doubt there are many takers in this forum.

[hired goon]

G'day,

I can stream millions of hi-quality tunes via MOG for $4.95/m ... it's fan-bloody-tastic! There's also Spotify, Rhapsody, etc. So there's no need for downloading via dodgy torrent sites IMHO, at least here in the US. Apparently Spotify will be coming to Oz and NZ soon, so you 'just sampling' voters can enjoy what I get to enjoy (or you could stream MOG/Spotify via a US proxy and enjoy it now, though I'm not sure of the legality of that).

I'm curious whether 'just samplers delete their downloads after just sampling ... ?

--Geoff

[Luc]

I find torrenting a great way to sample music.

For the artists I think this is a difficult one. Yes, there will be lots of copies of your music out there that no-one paid for. But would they have bought it anyway? I suspect only a small proportion of the downloaders would have purchased the music, most would have just gone without like we all did when we were younger. Against this you have the exposure which will lead to sales to those who like to own the music and I would think that you would end up with a net increase in sales. Furthermore, the promotion which you get from your music being pirated can help ticket sales to concerts and the like. Given that the actual artists make more proportionally money from concert tickets than from music sales (the record companies take the lion's share) there is a good argument that the artist will make more money if their music is pirated. No idea whether anyone has attempted to crunch the numbers on this though.

I have certainly discovered a lot of good music from suggestions here and elsewhere and bought it after hearing a torrented MP3. I've also avoided a lot of music which is not to my taste.

DS

Sensible summation David and many acts these days make their money from touring and despite the hysteria about torrenting and the howls from the film and music recording industry, torrenting is still a minor pastime. Sure figures can be put up to show ISP statistics but does that differentiate between me using µT to run my Steam account and me using µT for torrenting through a proxy?
I doubt it and yet I max out my 200GB per month plan every month and to a casual observer the alarm bells might start ringing: "How can he use so much down+up traffic?"
Easy when you your playing MMORPG and your swapping stuff with mates.

[proftournesol]

Whether it was downloaded or listened to on the radio, if I like it I'll buy it, if I don't like it I won't, no sale lost. In fact I'd have saved maybe thousands of dollars if there were no downloads so maybe I should support banning it:)
The line pushed by the music 'industry' is disingenuous at best I think, their 'losses' are calculated on the basis of every download being a definite lost sale.

[damohpi]

Not that I really need to justify my vote, but I download mainly to sample, however, voted yes as I rarely delete something that is not to my tastes (I presume the others that voted only for sampling do???!). I also buy a lot of music, but doubt that I would have purchased a lot of what I downloaded in the first place, so don't really see it as a direct loss of revenue to the artists, if any thing they would pick up a few more sales from the stuff I do like. Personally I don't see this as any different to sampling music via streaming sites - grooveshark, etc.

[Luc]

G'day,



I'm curious whether 'just samplers delete their downloads after just sampling ... ?

--Geoff

I don't as a rule unless it's absolute garbage and sometimes I'll pass them on to someone else who might or might not go out and buy the stuff like I do. Heaps of proxy sites, heaps of anonymous sites, a country's borders are no longer a guarantee of fidelity.
Amazon App Store USA (as an example), limited to the US only and yet 40+% of it's free stuff goes to overseas people (like me) and I don't have a problem with that via proxies.

[Drew]

I’m not sure about this notion that artists make more money from touring than sales. This may be true for the heavyweights that sell out venues all over the world….but what about the smaller acts that play small venues that don’t sell out; I suspect they need every bit of income that they can get. From interviews that I’ve watched on the subject, it appears to be a consensus that it is harder to make a living in the industry than ever before; and I suspect that dwindling sales is one of the reasons for this. I don’t buy torrents not having an impact…of my non audiophile friends, I don’t think any of them ever buy music; everything comes from torrents for free.

[Arg]

It shouldn't be necessary for anyone to download music if his/her objective is not to steal it but to sample it. Numerous online music sales sites allow legal and legitimate sampling of songs before purchasing. Push the button and a sample is streamed. Why download?

[datafone]

Whether it was downloaded or listened to on the radio, if I like it I'll buy it, if I don't like it I won't, no sale lost. In fact I'd have saved maybe thousands of dollars if there were no downloads so maybe I should support banning it:)
The line pushed by the music 'industry' is disingenuous at best I think, their 'losses' are calculated on the basis of every download being a definite lost sale.

Agreed, the way they calculate it is so crazy!

The larger % of those downloads would never translate into sales, might be in the order of 95% that would never become sales.

[brumby]

I voted no for the very simple reason that it is not necessary to download a piece of music in order to "sample" it. Hired Goon and Arg's points are irrefutable, IMHO. I've been sampling music on the radio for as long as I can remember. There are LOTS more ways to do it now.

[proftournesol]

It shouldn't be necessary for anyone to download music if his/her objective is not to steal it but to sample it. Numerous online music sales sites allow legal and legitimate sampling of songs before purchasing. Push the button and a sample is streamed. Why download?

30 seconds isn't a adequate sample. I may want to listen to it away from the computer so I can't sample it on-line. A typical scenario would be that i'd hear a song on the radio, rather than wait weeks or months to maybe hear it again, I can buy the song on iTunes or download it and then either way consider whether i want to buy it on vinyl or CD. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. It's a bit like chocolates, I get a sample and if I like it I buy it, if not, I don't.

[Drew]

Agreed, the way they calculate it is so crazy!

The larger % of those downloads would never translate into sales, might be in the order of 95% that would never become sales.

How do we know that?

[Drew]

Agreed, the way they calculate it is so crazy!

The larger % of those downloads would never translate into sales, might be in the order of 95% that would never become sales.

How do you know thats?

[brumby]

Deductive reasoning.

[davidsss]

Drew, Datafone is speculating, but I reckon, going on the behaviour I have seen, that he would be close to the mark.

I agree with Prof, I want to hear whole songs and whole albums to work out if I want to buy it, not just short samples.

And, yes, I do delete the music I don't like and therefore don't buy. Why would I want to keep it?

DS

[brumby]

I am sure there are many like yourself who do delete the music, David. I am equally sure that they are in the tiny minority.

[proftournesol]

Every 20 years the music industry has had to come up with a new technology to stimulate sales. The last technology introduction was CD, unfortunately for them the current one is the digital file but unfortunately it's a technology that the music industry can't organise a way to monopolise it and make money.

[datafone]

How do we know that?

We don't for sure, do we?

It's just a calculated estimate using common sense, and observation on my part, so just my opinion.

[proftournesol]

How do we know that?

how can the music industry be so certain that every downloaded track is a definite lost sale?

[proftournesol]

I am sure there are many like yourself who do delete the music, David. I am equally sure that they are in the tiny minority.

Then maybe the question is how many of those kids would spend their own money to actually buy the music? I suggest that we can all postulate but that this question is impossible to determine with any certainty, each side will introduce it's own bias into their argument. Maybe the real question for the music industry is how they can introduce a compelling reason for people to buy music. For me, that compelling reason is vinyl, the industry needs to find enough reasons for enough people. I'd suggest that the threat of imprisonment enjoys the joy of music and works against the industry.

[Luc]

I am sure there are many like yourself who do delete the music, David. I am equally sure that they are in the tiny minority.

I do delete 'stuff' but take my 18 yr old daughter; she has at last stocktaking about 400GB of music, some of it purchased through iTunes until my pleading finally worked and she stopped and began to sample via the many many sites where you can do this for free.
But like Prof has said, 30 seconds does not fit the bill so she migrated toward Band's site's and grabbed their free DL's and then migrated back to torrent sites because she couldn't afford to purchase whole albums just to trial them.

I suggested going down to one or more of the local CD shops and having a listen and she said why? I can get the same thing off the net tonight and I don't feel bad about not buying it and ..."Dad if I wanted this album I can get it for $4.50 as a DL or $11.95 as an actual CD off CD Wow with free delivery, it's 27 bucks at the shops!"

These are the people driving torrenting, not us comfortably off middle class males. I find it a convenience but if it stopped tomorrow then another avenue would open up: The Genie is out of the box and it'll never be put back, GNU attitudes run the pointy end of the Net and I think it'll always be so and they'll be one step ahead of whatever Governments and Corporations put in their way to stop or stall them.

[Arg]

30 seconds isn't a adequate sample.

Try YouTube.

I may want to listen to it away from the computer ....

Hang on, you haven't bought it yet!


By the time I've sampled every song on an album (not all that common really) I've heard 5 to 10 minutes of it. Fair's fair.

By the time we've heard the samples and read the reviews, ... well I'm ready to make a decision. It's not a major investment, enough agonising already.

I mean, we BUY A CAR with one (maybe two) test drives. Sure we'd like to live with it for a month first; city jamming, carry the bike, pack kids in, country drives, stand on the roof to watch the local footy, holidays, wet and dry conditions, night driving, stinking heat..... but we don't, because we know what's a fair suck o' the sauce bottle.

[Mr Tubson]

I'm a no man.

I like to own stuff.

I also feel good knowing that by me purchasing a legitimate copy of their work, the artist will be able to afford to eat for the day*.



*As long as the artist limits his/her self to one meal comprising of home-brand canned food.

[kunalraiker]

Will be the first to admit, I do get lossless music from time to time, convenience I guess ?
Cost too! cannot buy music and music gear at the same time, can we ?

[Proac]

Strongly held views. As is to be expected.

I don't want to get into the whole "theft" / breach of copyright thing. Other than to say, at least in Australia, it is a tort not a crime, and I buy more music now than I ever have. Think for a moment why?

I would also say that laws serve society not the other way around. Good law is law the changes to reflect the changed society we all live in. I have little if any sympathy for a monolithic business model that relies on outdated distribution methods and inefficient inherent cost of production to justify the status quo. Worse, to then try to enforce that status qua through law - which is at best a slow, tedious and ineffective means of controlling markets - is little better than the manipulation of public sentiment for their own commercial interest.

These are the people driving torrenting, not us comfortably off middle class males.

ha - I dunno about that mate - in 2008 I was working in at Westmead when one of the 50 year old PA's was discussing tv shows she had torrented over the weekend with a mate over coffee. I knew then it had really come of age.

I rarely tor now - all the content is available for straight download. Mainly I use it, or a VPN proxy, to watch content (mainly TV shows) not available in Australia at all.

Perhaps instead of trying to stop the tide of change the record companies might, like Linn Records (and their list of partner labels..which grows every month), embrace the technology. Whether the record companies, you, I, or anyone else like it, file distribution over the internet is here to stay. It may as well be made as convenient and as easy as possible for the consumer to engage in. Roll on DSD downloads.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Proac, 19 January 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Whatmore]

G'day,

I can stream millions of hi-quality tunes via MOG for $4.95/m ... it's fan-bloody-tastic! There's also Spotify, Rhapsody, etc. So there's no need for downloading via dodgy torrent sites IMHO, at least here in the US. Apparently Spotify will be coming to Oz and NZ soon, so you 'just sampling' voters can enjoy what I get to enjoy (or you could stream MOG/Spotify via a US proxy and enjoy it now, though I'm not sure of the legality of that).

I'm curious whether 'just samplers delete their downloads after just sampling ... ?

--Geoff

Why does that make a difference?

[Phill451]

while I don't work in the music industry I am a publisher, and while I accept that at their worst all publishers stoop to exploiting both their artists and audiences, I do not believe this is the rule.

Leaving aside the fine line between a civil and criminal wrong, theft is theft to me. if you don't like certain music labels and their practices don't buy from them, don't on the the other hand delude yourself into believing that pirating music or movies is in some way an egalitarian act, it is the reverse.

Coincidentally I posed the question today at work to half a dozen of my colleagues, do you stream or download pirated video? The most frequent response was I don't personally but if one of my friends/relatives does and they pass it on to me I watch it and keep a copy...and this from people who depend on copyright for their liveliehood.

[firedog]

It shouldn't be necessary for anyone to download music if his/her objective is not to steal it but to sample it. Numerous online music sales sites allow legal and legitimate sampling of songs before purchasing. Push the button and a sample is streamed. Why download?

30 second samples of the first 30 seconds of a track don't do much for me. And not everything is available for sample online. So yes, I download and sample. If I find I don't like something or sort of like it but don't listen to it at least occasionally, I delete it. If I find myself going back to listen to it a few times, I buy it.

I've gotten to the point where I don't want to buy any music without hearing it at home first. Other than the music itself, there is the issue of the recording. If the recording sounds bad or is extremely volume compressed, I won't buy it, even if I like the music. And there of lots of lousy sounding recordings/masterings.

I've bought lots of music that I never would have unless I sampled it first.

Edited by firedog, 19 January 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[firedog]

Every 20 years the music industry has had to come up with a new technology to stimulate sales. The last technology introduction was CD, unfortunately for them the current one is the digital file but unfortunately it's a technology that the music industry can't organise a way to monopolise it and make money.

Yes, that's why they are trying in the US to get laws passed that will enable them to demand the shutdown of any site that has a link to an illegal download. Even if that link is incidental to the site content, and even if not posted by the site owners. The media companies are still stuck in 1920. They can't figure out how to make money from the new world, so they want to keep the world in the last century.

[houdinifangs]

Seen and coached this debate on both sides several times in middle school debates (yr7-9). Most 12-15 y.o's don't seem to be aware that many songs/movies from torrents are pirated. Really it hadn't entered the realm of the possible that they are actually stealing music. They will tell you that it must be ok because everyone does it and they are free to use their technology for whatever purpose they can - "freedom of choice" - youth LOL.

More often in these debates the argument that downloading pirated music is wrong is accepted but the other team wins the overall debate because models that proposed counteractive measures are always proven " too difficult to understand and implement".

For example on a torrent site pirated and non-pirated content can be downloaded - however it can be very difficult for children to tell the difference. The "how do you monitor it" arguments fall into economic or technical loops.

The moral arguments are rarely convincing - although expecting teens to understand the moral rights of artists is fairly ambitious. I don't meet many adults (including myself) with a strong grasp of "moral rights" arguments.

Try telling a 15 y.o that they are socially constructed and they need to situate their values within the experience of others...

[hired goon]

G'day,

Why does that make a difference?

Once you've 'just sampled' the music that you've downloaded, then you should be deleting yer downloads because (a) you like the music and yer gunna buy it, or ( you don't like the music and yer not gunna listen again.

If you keep the download files (after allowing for some reasonable time to listen) then most likely yer gunna listen again without buying, i.e. yer not 'just sampling' anymore but 'just yoinking'.

--Geoff

[datafone]

yoinking, HG?

I tried googling and even the Urban dictionary's are yet to explain it

[hired goon]

G'day,

yoinking, HG?

"Yoink" is from The Simpsons. It's an exclamation uttered when taking something. See the Urban Dictionary definition. Hence 'yoinking' means 'taking'.

--Geoff

Edited by hired goon, 20 January 2012 - 05:37 AM.

[datafone]

Ah, thanks Jeff

As a past devotee of Simsons viewing I'm surprised I missed it...

[JeffK]

I have one song I downloaded from the net without paying ie Kelly Clarkson's version of "Make You Feel My Love" as I've never found it as a hard copy. I like it. I think only Luka Bloom's version is better.