No doubt this topic has already been posted somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so here goes:

I find the whole MP3 downloading 'revolution' highly disturbing. People steal music and infringe on copyrights, simply 'cause the technology allows them too. People have no shame. It's gimme gimme gimme, with no thought to the musicians.

I suspect some of you are in favor of downloading. I'm curious to hear your arguments....

I don't do it for several reasons, but I think the idea from a promotional standpoint is a good one. It's unfortunate that it has to turn into an ugly debate, but I guess that's life under capitalism.

I don't see what the 'errors' of capitalism have to do with it. The musicians who are getting ripped off aren't making any $$. Where's the capitalism there?

Maybe from a promotional standpoint it can be useful, but the damage caused seems to outweigh that, no?

One of the tenets of capitalism is a free market; you offer a product for a certain price, but people are free to offer a similar one for less and the market will bear, as they say. Free downloads are just a ridiculous extension of that scenario.

And by the way, we agree.

bottom line is if you make it you're going to be rich. The Strokes are rich. The White Stripes are rich. 50 Cent is rich. They are just as rich, if not richer than the bands that made it and came along before downloading.

and the bands that don't make it are still making the same amount of money.

the only bands that are getting fucked over are the bands that sign stupid contracts and don't end up being successful and have to pay back the record companies. but is that the downloadings fault? no.

so what are you complaining about?

Do you realize who is complaining? The record companies because they aren't making ENOUGH money.

who cares about them. not me.

Downloading MP3's is good because people can now listen to MORE music. Fuckwit record compainies think that for every britney spears album that is downloaded, that is a sale that is lost. no. most likely, that person would not have even bought the record. about 90 percent of the shit downloaded is just downloaded to test it out.

I haven't spent as much money on music as I have since being able to download mp3's. I don't feel guilty doing either for these reasons; First of all, I'm not downloading an exact duplicate, it's a compressed, degrated version of the album. The original does, and always qill sound better. Second, I live in a city that doesn't have independent record shops that I can go into and listen to the newest drag city supergroup or whatever, so it saves me driving 300 miles to do that.

Basically, if I download something and like it, I don't have to think twice about adding it in the next time I'm ordering records. Also, since I prefer to buy vinyl whenever possible, I can keep the cdr and listen to it in my car, saving me a little hassle transferring the album on my computer. (kudos to 1000hz) It basically allows me to preview all kinds of music at my convenience, and if I happen to not like it, well, delete.

Braden wrote:I don't feel guilty doing either for these reasons; First of all, I'm not downloading an exact duplicate, it's a compressed, degrated version of the album. The original does, and always will sound better.

I think the problem originally addressed is aimed at those who download as an alternative to purchasing. To those, it seems, the quality mentioned is negligable. The "product" is the end result. This slope will get more slippery with better quality equipment coming out every six months. It seems that most people on this board are coming at it as a way to preview things before they actually spend money. I would like to hear an intelligent defense of downloading that doesn't rely on the old "major labels suck" argument.

pullin this defense out of my ass, but you asked for one, so...

if i buy a van gogh painting, and then take a pen and trace it onto tracing paper, and then give out copies to whoever wants them, is that really all that different than taking a cd and making an mp3 of it and sharing it? is it illegal to give away badly-perpared pen sketches of a painting? i don't think so.

my feeling is that bands have an opportunity to make money, if that's their goal, performing live. that's something that nobody can copy. and actually come to think of it, aren't you allowed to play cover songs live without paying royalties, if you want to? but really, i think the live performance, and the experience therein, is what cannot be copied. and from what i've heard, that's where bands make real money anways.

i don't understand how it can be illegal for me to give anything away. i can understand not being allowed to sell mp3 rips of cds, but if they're being given away with no charge? like, if i were to manufacture low-quality knock-offs of a ford mustang, and give them away, would that be punishable?

i think maybe i like the fact that downloading could represent a loss of incentive to major labels or to "artists" to be in the "business". i wouldn't mind a world that had less major players making tons of money cramming dave matthews and 50 cent down my throat. i know that's the whole "fuck the majors" thing you said to leave out, but i think anything that would lessen the corporate element of the music business if fine by me.

i like art. if i made a painting, and somebody was handing out cheap knock-offs, i don't think i'd mind. i guess it's all about where you draw the line? every band out there at one time or another uses a riff that somebody else wrote before they did. some bands do it all the time. we could take it to that level, too, and say that if you use a riff that's in E pentatonic minor and it sounds exactly like a zepplin riff, you shouldn't be allowed to play it? protecting their artistic creation and such? at some point, there would be no riffs left. how sad that'd be.

oh shit! i didn't catch the "intelligent defense" part of your request. scracth everything i just said!