but I find it hard to swallow that a "fan" would not bother to acquire the latest release, in commercial form, by a band they were a fan of.

I don't know for sure, but I would guess there are a great many people who would buy CDs of their favorite bands, unless they could easily download the album for free. IOW there's an album they want. They'll buy it if that's the only way to get it, but if they can easily download a torrent or whatever, they'll do that instead of buying the CD because it's free and easier than buying a disc. Am I the only one that thinks this is very common? Do you think downloads affect sales a little? A lot? Not at all?

I don't believe that being in the state of "not having purchased but listen to somehow" unethical in and of itself...

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that listening to music that hasn't been purchased is unethical. ("listen to somehow" could mean hearing a song on the radio, in a club, at a friend's house, etc.)

At any rate, Touch & Go has several out of print titles that can only be owned via used record stores or downloaded copy. Either way, Touch & Go and the artist see no revenue.

Right. But my question was: is it unethical to download (without paying) an album from an indie label, listen to it, and not ever pay for it. An in-print title, let's say. Is that unethical, or no?

By the way, I'm asking these questions because I think it's worthwhile to consider the impact our actions or inactions have. I'm not judging people, nor am I telling people how they should behave. I am interested to hear what you all think about these issues.

newberry wrote:I don't know for sure, but I would guess there are a great many people who would buy CDs of their favorite bands, unless they could easily download the album for free. IOW there's an album they want. They'll buy it if that's the only way to get it, but if they can easily download a torrent or whatever, they'll do that instead of buying the CD because it's free and easier than buying a disc. Am I the only one that thinks this is very common? Do you think downloads affect sales a little? A lot? Not at all?

I suppose each of us can only speak for ourselves, so everything said about the habits of others is conjecture.

That said, I have one close acquaintance who pretty much insisted I bring my audio hard drive over to his place to he could pick through it and refresh his iPod. He's got decent taste in regards to indie/hipster shit, but he is of the ilk that are only interested in music insofar as it defines their image, like some fucking "lifestyle accessory". In short, they're not interested in the purely artistic side of it, just the part that has some cultural cache.

Here's a couple "issues" he has with me, his words italicized:
1) I need to lighten up and listen to shit like Kanye West. It's clever, slick and modern. Hip Hop production is art too, y'know.

2) I'm elitist for not watching American Idol. Yes it's mindless, but the whole world is watching it, and that makes it culturally revelant.

So in a nutshell, he represents an incredibly shallow segment of the population that has no interest in paying for music, as they don't estimate it as something worth paying for. They don't need to pay as much as they need good ass-kicking.

Partial blame goes to the industry, which has fostered the notion of music's disposability by marketing music that is, in it's heart, intentionally vapid and disposable. In order remind their audience that music, even really bad music, is still art, they inflate it's cost and reap an excessive profit, artist be damned (assuming it's art). Then there's the endless re-issues of old titles. Records last too long, see, so CDs were deliberately made shitty so the major labels could double-dip. When the industry is reliant on a format that is self-obsoleting, it kinda takes the point out of buying releases in the first place.

But this was way off topic.

I have several titles from the sendspace thread that I have never bothered to listen to, and when I do, I lose interest quickly. I like the ritual using my record player, and I just can't be bothered to run my laptop into my amplifier.

If I were to download the latest Low album, listen to it, and decide it's a dud, then it wouldn't find it's way onto my record shelf, next to their other records. No harm, no foul. But honestly, if I had actually bought it, I might hold it in a different light and thusly have a different appraisal of it. Then again, there's an equal chance I might feel ripped off and never buy anything by them again.

People who care about good music will pay for good music, and people who don't, won't.

I try to buy what I like new. There are several factors involved however:

I don't give a shit about buying albums from artists who are dead.

I don't give a shit about buying albums from artists who have more than enough money already (Dylan, Sabbath, whatever.)

I don't give a shit about buying albums from artists that are shitty people, or have done shitty shit to other people (Butthole Surfers).

I'll download an album (or buy it used) by a band that I've seen a few times before/bought merch or records from before. Usually this is because it's not financially feasibly for me to get a copy at the time, or I'm just seeing if I like it. I don't really care about jacking some shitty new Sonic Youth album because I've given them enough money over the years.

Although sometimes I'm just a shitty person and will download an album by a band I like who probably aren't making as much money as they deserve, and I will never get a chance to give them my money. Sorry.