Downloading issues (again)

[ION BRITTON]

I split some posts from the HELL thread in VoT..soon to be merged with some other similar thread in this subforum./Mod

[daniel]

There's nothing hard to understand about my earlier comment, and you don't even spell your username correctly.

"I swear, downloaders are the absolute fiercest defenders of their behavior in the world". Oh, I think this thread bears witness to others being quite good at it as well.

Calling Cochino childish etc. while providing your "amazing" examples about murder etc. is rich.

I find all this ultra-moralistic talk of even tape trading and the like being wrong a bunch of shit simply put. Along with having no understanding for opposing views without seeing any of the shortcomings in your own, as if feigned morality and legality trumps all. Go join an undercover special ops team fighting to take down the evil underground scroungers. Or help those poor poor studios battle film piracy.

[Dodens Grav]

There's nothing hard to understand about my earlier comment, and you don't even spell your username correctly.

You forget that I don't have a European keyboard. It's not easy to type symbols like ö and ø, and it would simply be a waste of time to do so every time I had to write my own name, so I'm not going to apologize for taking a shortcut in my username .

"I swear, downloaders are the absolute fiercest defenders of their behavior in the world". Oh, I think this thread bears witness to others being quite good at it as well.

I didn't perform any behavior that I'm defending. Again, I'm not going to apologize for laying out complete arguments and using logic. My issue is when one desperately flails for arguments to support their actions regardless of whether or not they make sense, like Cochino did, and like dozens of other downloaders I've discussed the issue with have done.

Calling Cochino childish etc. while providing your "amazing" examples about murder etc. is rich.

Would you care to tackle the analogies instead of making snide remarks? Or would you rather not address anything substantive at all and instead talk about my username and quote and comment insignificant passing remarks in a much broader argument? I admit your approach is much easier, though less satisfying in the long run.

I find all this ultra-moralistic talk of even tape trading and the like being wrong a bunch of shit simply put. Along with having no understanding for opposing views without seeing any of the shortcomings in your own, as if feigned morality and legality trumps all. Go join an undercover special ops team fighting to take down the evil underground scroungers. Or help those poor poor studios battle film piracy.

It's factually wrong, so you can think it's a bunch of shit all you want. What you think doesn't alter reality. Buying a tape doesn't give you the right to replicate the tape and exchange it for other replicated tapes, or even give it to somebody for no reimbursement. What is there to understand about "opposing views"? That some people want things for free? That, in some instances, illegal downloading promotes legal purchasing? That, ultimately, illegal downloading isn't that horrible of a crime or that big of a deal? What is so hard to see about that? It's not complicated. Nonetheless, that does not make it ethical to pirate anything, as if appeal to ethics and logic is actually a bad thing that I should be ashamed of employing. I also never made the argument that what is legal is what is right and fair. It just so happens that the two coincide fairly often, though most certainly not always. I don't even think 'illegal' downloading is illegal in all countries anyway. Obviously you're more interested in making snide remarks and other equally irrelevant comments that don't actually address any issues actually being raised, so why bother even 'contributing' in this debate if you have no interest in actually tackling the arguments?

[Cochino]

When is the last time that you stumbled upon a new album that didn't have a sample somewhere online for free? Hell made a fucking music video for Christ's sake. There are samples for just about anything that you could want to buy available through approved means such that it's impossible to justify illegal downloading with that argument. The argument that that you may not like an album after you buy it means that you should be able to hear the album through any means necessary is also utterly ridiculous. It's not like buying a hammer, which, if faulty, is an objectively bad hammer and for which you should be entitled a refund. If you don't like a musical recording, that is not the band's fault, since it's a matter of opinion, and they are in no way wronging you or taking advantage of you if you buy an album that you don't enjoy. Actually, to think that is, to be blunt, really fucking stupid.

Yeah, if I listened to "Nevermore" as a sample of the new Morbid Angel album I might have bought it, and just think what I would've gotten. And the band doing me no wrong by making me buy something I don't like it's your view on things. I think it's wrong since I don't have enough money to spend on mediocre or just plain shitty albums. I need to know what I'm getting.

Purchasing a CD does not give one the authority to reproduce and distribute it to other people in any way. I don't care if this is how tape trading worked "back in the day", and that this is what the underground was built on and everything else in this regard that you can possibly feed me, because it's still technically wrong, even if bands approve of distributing their music this way (assuming that it was a commercially released product and not something self-released like a rehearsal tape that a band encourages people to share; when an album is released by a third party, they too have certain rights over the product element of the music, you know).

Allright, so you would also been against tape trading and such practices which are the ones that made bands with so limited releases, such as Hell, have the legendary status they have today. You'd rather have all those mediocre Thrash bands labels were releasing legally back in the 80s I guess.

Besides all that, if there' are bands who benefit from mp3s that's gotta be bands like Hell. I doubt this album would've been released or sold half the copies it has sold if it wasn't for the demo mp3s that got spread around in the last 10 years or so.

While this may be true, it's also equally irrelevant. Besides, what was pirated was material (largely) that was never even officially released and unavailable for purchase either way. To make the argument that because a band from the 80s is relevant today only because of the persistence of tape trading and mp3 sharing, that entitles one to continue to pirate new music that they record, is absolutely beyond any form of reason.

Ok, then it wasn't a moral issue, just a legal one. Well, I don't agree with all laws. Who the fuck made the copyright laws anyway? Certainly not somebody thinking in the well being of artists.

But go ahead and buy that "downloading is stealing" bullshit that the mainstream media tries to feed you. If they're behind all that you should suspect there's something wrong about it.

This is completely childish, moronic, and silly. Do you still refer to police as "the man"? The mainstream media also feeds us things like murder is bad. Should I suspect that something is wrong about the notion that I shouldn't murder random people out of the joy that it brings me? Or is it possible that whether or not the mainstream media supports a proposition is overwhelmingly irrelevant to whether or not that proposition holds any merit when measured under scrutiny? I swear, downloaders are the absolute fiercest defenders of their behavior in the world, short of theists.

Sorry, but if somebody who's interested in screwing me over and over says something, I'm not gonna accept it right away. As I said, you should suspect there's something wrong about it and think about it yourself instead of abiding to it as if it was set in stone. I am in no way saying that the bands don't have the right to sell albums and make a living out of their music. I spend more money on music than anything else and I support bands I like in any way I can. But I don't buy that piracy is killing music bullshit, and I don't even think downloading should be labeled as piracy. Making a profit out of it, yes. Downloading to decide if you want something or not, no.

What made the underground strong back in the 80s weren't the big labels, it was tape trading which eventually led to smaller labels to release those demo bands. Nowadays it's done through the internet instead of mail but it's got the same results. There weren't that many niche labels like Stormspell, Shadow Kingdom, Nuclear War Now! and the like.

I already said this earlier, but whether or not the underground operated through certain means has no bearing on whether or not it should have. Besides, most of what was tape traded was demos and rehearsals, things that were never officially released by a third party, leaving the entirety of the rights up to the bands, and a lot of bands had no problem with dubs (although not all of them; Witchfinder General comes to mind). But tape trading was done largely to sample music that you had no other way of hearing. NOW you do. It's absolutely more difficult to try to find a release that you can't sample for free without obtaining it through some unapproved mean than it is to find a sample of a release that you want to buy.

Allright then, I guess you care more about some owner of a label making a buck than the band's music spreading around because "that is the law". Have you ever been in a band?

And regardless of all that, and even if downloading mp3s was stealing, daniel still has all the right in the world to say whatever he feels about the music and he's not less qualified than any of you because he didn't buy the album. We're talking about music here, not collections.

You are aware that nobody ever discounted what daniel said about the music on the grounds that he illegally downloaded it, right? Not a single comment was made to the sentiment that "daniel illegally downloaded the new Hell album, therefore what he thinks of the music itself is irrelevant", so you had no reason to even say this at all. This has been entirely a discussion about downloading, not about the particular album that was downloaded in this instance. Although, amusingly, daniel did attempt to say that what I did say earlier was something nobody should "give a shit" about because I didn't read an entire post, so if you're interested in finding ridiculous claims about the legitimacy of an argument, you can use that as an example instead of fabricating the one that you wrote about in your head.

Well, this is a thread about discussing music and all the main thing he had to object about daniel's opinion was the fact that he downloaded it, I'd say he's trying to render his opinion worthless based on that fact. Might be an error in interpretation though, since English is not my first language and I'm just self taught, so it could be a mistake on my part.

Also, about "But hey if you can save yourself a few bucks fuck the people who actually create/put their own money up/take a chance.... ". What about bands making money from mediocre or shitty records fucking people who works hard to earn their money to find they spent it in a worthless piece of crap? Isn't that being a ripoff? Isn't that fucking people?

What makes a record mediocre or shitty is what you think about the record, and bands don't have control over that. I already said this earlier as well, but it's absolutely asinine to make the argument that because you didn't like an album and you spent money to hear it, you have somehow been cheated out of your money. You were not forced to buy it, for starters. Your money was not stolen. You simply made a purchase that turned out not to be a good one for you in particular. That doesn't mean the album itself is bad and that thousands of other people didn't happily purchase and enjoy the shit out of it. People have different tastes, so it's inevitable that just about every recording will be called mediocre or shitty by somebody after they purchased it. But if an album is really that shitty, you should be able to tell that based on whatever samples the band or label offers of that album. If you bought an album that had free samples online by which you would be able to tell whether or not you would like it but which you elected not to sample and you didn't like the album, then that is your own fault, plain and simple.

To reiterate, this particular argument of yours is completely ridiculous and makes no sense. An album that you don't like may be "worthless" to you, but even if you're a solipsist, you're still not the only person in the world, and that album is most likely worthy for exponentially more people than you. To suggest that you were fucked or ripped off because you bought an album and didn't like it is so childish and naive that I found it difficult to even respond seriously to such a claim.

Not all albums have samples available. And if I download an album I don't lose any money and the band doesn't lose a copy or their music. What's the big deal there? I am not always willing to spend money in something I don't know if I'd like or not so I'm not going to. If I check it I might buy it so if anything the band can gain money from me listening rather than losing anything.

And saying that "if everybody downloads and doesn't buy" is also crap because that doesn't happen. Everybody on this site has a collection. Everybody spends lots money on music so why starting shit when they decided to check something out before spending some on it? There's too many offer and some of us don't have enough money to buy everything we think we might like.

Another absurd and illogical argument. To suggest that it's okay for some people to do something wrong because enough people do something right does not make the wrong action any less wrong or any more desirable for society. Is it okay for a few people to murder every once in a while because the overwhelming majority doesn't? Should I not maintain the position that "nobody should murder others because if everybody murdered, then nobody would exist"? Anyway, the argument behind the idea you contest is related to the bystander effect. At the scene of an accident, when a crowd gathers, sometimes everybody will just assume that another bystander has already acted to bring assistance to the scene, so they don't act. If everybody at the scene thinks this same thing, then assistance will never arrive and the victims will surely die. Likewise, to use the line of thinking that somebody will buy this album, so it's okay if I download it also makes the assumption that results in the inactivity of the person in question. That in itself is not the problem, per se. The problem is if everybody, or the majority, begins to think the same way. There is an eventual tipping point between buying and downloading. If a label releases a CD that is interesting to 1000 people and prints 1000 copies of it, but 950 of those people say to themselves that everybody else will give the band/label money for their labors, so it's just a drop in the bucket if I download it for free, then the CD only sells 50 copies, and then the label decides to stop pressing CDs.

So my examples are ridiculous but your contast comparission between downloading and murder is not? As I said, things aren't black and white and not agreeing with a law doesn't mean not agreeing with any of them and being ok with murder. Hyperbole much?

[daniel]

I was already arguing about the matter when you decided to join in rather flippantly, so, we'll leave the personal crap out.

The issue is not about "stealing albums", it's about choosing to listen to a release in its entirety to make up your mind whether it's worth spending money on or not. Too bad if that means certain bands don't end up getting as much money because people decide to make informed purchases instead, and are not happy with a sample here and there that gets tossed from the master's table. So if anyone, Cochino included as you called him stupid, says they want to hear the whole album before shelling out so as not to be disappointed, and you say it must be done legally, even though it comes down to the same damn end result is just a really pointless argument - oh my god broke the lawz.

Technically it should also be illegal to blast music from your car stereo etc. so others may hear it right?

That "murder is wrong" is something that has come about becasue of its detrimental nature to human society and advance. I shouldn't even have to point out that it is in fact not always wrong, convicts are legally executed, people are murdered in war, governments maneuver to control the population, animals are tortured and murdered every day, and so forth, the morality of the matter seems largely circumstancial.

"I already said this earlier, but whether or not the underground operated through certain means has no bearing on whether or not it should have."

Nevertheless you would be arguing against reality, you can cry crime all you want but saying it's wrong doesn't mean it won't continue. This isn't an argument to steer people away from ever indulging the "sin" it's just a moral outcry that has no physical affect.

Actually Quietus posts pretty much implied it didn't matter what I said precisely becasue of how I came about hearing the music in question.

"Another absurd and illogical argument. To suggest that it's okay for some people to do something wrong because enough people do something right does not make the wrong action any less wrong or any more desirable for society. Is it okay for a few people to murder every once in a while because the overwhelming majority doesn't? Should I not maintain the position that "nobody should murder others because if everybody murdered, then nobody would exist"? Anyway, the argument behind the idea you contest is related to the bystander effect. At the scene of an accident, when a crowd gathers, sometimes everybody will just assume that another bystander has already acted to bring assistance to the scene, so they don't act. If everybody at the scene thinks this same thing, then assistance will never arrive and the victims will surely die. Likewise, to use the line of thinking that somebody will buy this album, so it's okay if I download it also makes the assumption that results in the inactivity of the person in question. That in itself is not the problem, per se. The problem is if everybody, or the majority, begins to think the same way. There is an eventual tipping point between buying and downloading. If a label releases a CD that is interesting to 1000 people and prints 1000 copies of it, but 950 of those people say to themselves that everybody else will give the band/label money for their labors, so it's just a drop in the bucket if I download it for free, then the CD only sells 50 copies, and then the label decides to stop pressing CDs."

If it's available for download someone most likey DID already buy it Though this wasn't about any "maybe someone else will buy it so it's ok for me to download it", it's about making an informed purchase, how many goddamn times does it need repeating - which goes back to your "if you spent money and don't like it you're stupid" point

[Dodens Grav]

Yeah, if I listened to "Nevermore" as a sample of the new Morbid Angel album I might have bought it, and just think what I would've gotten. And the band doing me no wrong by making me buy something I don't like it's your view on things. I think it's wrong since I don't have enough money to spend on mediocre or just plain shitty albums. I need to know what I'm getting.

It's not simply 'my view' when I say that a heavy metal band is not WRONGING you if you buy their album and you don't like it. You seriously have to be absolutely the most ridiculous person to ever have lived if you think you have been WRONGED because you don't like an album that a band released after you bought it. How can you even rationalize this? I don't have enough money to spend on mediocre or just plain shitty albums either, but amazingly I somehow am able to know what I'm getting through samples and reviews. I can't even tell you the last time I bought an album that I disliked because I know what I like and I use samples and reviews of reliable sources to gauge whether or not I would like something. And I buy hundreds of albums a year and never download mp3s of anything that I don't already own. Again, you are not being WRONGED, screwed, violated, fucked, taken advantage of, raped, maimed, beaten, burnt, or murdered in any way, shape, or form imaginable if you happen to buy an album that you don't like, and I find it very odd that somebody would say this seriously. Such a statement implies that it was the band's intention to release crappy music that people will buy anyway so they will buy something that they won't enjoy. Have you ever heard an instance in which a band deliberately released music that they didn't like because they knew people would buy it and not like it? Your claim is really just...absurd.

Allright, so you would also been against tape trading and such practices which are the ones that made bands with so limited releases, such as Hell, have the legendary status they have today. You'd rather have all those mediocre Thrash bands labels were releasing legally back in the 80s I guess.

You are making assumptions that don't fit what was actually said. What I said was that tape trading officially distributed and properly copyrighted material, etc., was unethical, not that nothing good came out of it being done. Obviously the metal community has benefited from tape trading, probably as much, if not more so, than it was hurt from it. I never contested this, so don't put words in my mouth.

Ok, then it wasn't a moral issue, just a legal one. Well, I don't agree with all laws. Who the fuck made the copyright laws anyway? Certainly not somebody thinking in the well being of artists.

It's both a moral/ethical and a legal issue. I don't agree with all laws either. But why would you assume that copyright laws were not in the interests of the artists? Copyright laws are designed to allow creators to maintain the right to their product (whatever it may be) for a period of time without another party abusing said creator's intellectual property. That sounds pretty good for metal bands assuming they're smart enough to copyright their material and maintain their rights (which many bands were not, especially in the 80s, but that is the fault of their ignorance and the manipulation of certain labels and irrelevant to the broader issue).

Sorry, but if somebody who's interested in screwing me over and over says something, I'm not gonna accept it right away. As I said, you should suspect there's something wrong about it and think about it yourself instead of abiding to it as if it was set in stone. I am in no way saying that the bands don't have the right to sell albums and make a living out of their music. I spend more money on music than anything else and I support bands I like in any way I can. But I don't buy that piracy is killing music bullshit, and I don't even think downloading should be labeled as piracy. Making a profit out of it, yes. Downloading to decide if you want something or not, no.

How is the mainstream media interested in screwing you? You're nobody, the mainstream media doesn't care about your existence. Maybe you meant to say that the conglomerate record industry is claiming that it's killing music. Well, maybe it's not killing music, per se, but it has certainly killed record sales. It's not nearly as pronounced in underground music (of any genre), and certainly many smaller bands absolutely benefit from illegal downloading, but to claim that illegal downloading has had no negative impact in underground music, or underground metal more specifically, is either ignorant or myopic. Is it killing independent bands? No, I don't believe so anyway.

As to your claim that downloading shouldn't be labeled as piracy: I can't make sense of this. It is definitively piracy. Both uploading and downloading the content is an act of piracy. You are pirating a product, regardless of whether or not you make any kind of profit from it. Regardless of how you 'use' downloading (as with your example, downloading to sample), it is still absolutely piracy. The issue then becomes whether or not you object to piracy. This is an example of my earlier statement about downloaders defending their actions. If downloading is not piracy, then it doesn't sound as bad, so it makes me feel more okay about downloading. Unfortunately, it is piracy. I would have more respect for the avid 'leech' type of downloaders if they were more open and honest and said that they know what they do is unethical but that they just don't care that much. Not to say that that's you of course, but, as with everything else I've said, I'm trying to speak in a broader context to address the core issues.

Allright then, I guess you care more about some owner of a label making a buck than the band's music spreading around because "that is the law". Have you ever been in a band?

I would, again, appreciate if you refrain from making radical and baseless assumptions and attributing them to me. I care more about a band's right to control their creation than I do about the band's music spreading. I do think it's more important for a creator that creates a commercial product like a CD that contains his intellectual property to be able to protect his intellectual interests than it is important that anybody that wants to experience the creator's product can do so via any means. And I never said anything about justifying my argument with "law". Everything that I've said is entirely based in logic. That it happens to on occasion coincide with law and ethics is coincidental. Of course, if the band wants people to illegally download their music, then more power to them. My argument is that they have a right to have the choice to protect their creations.

Well, this is a thread about discussing music and all the main thing he had to object about daniel's opinion was the fact that he downloaded it, I'd say he's trying to render his opinion worthless based on that fact. Might be an error in interpretation though, since English is not my first language and I'm just self taught, so it could be a mistake on my part.

Well, I didn't read quietus say anything that was meant to influence what other people should think about daniel's post, so I have to disagree with you. My impression was that quietus doesn't care what daniel thinks about the music, but, regardless of that, he disapproves of daniel's position on downloading.

Not all albums have samples available. And if I download an album I don't lose any money and the band doesn't lose a copy or their music. What's the big deal there? I am not always willing to spend money in something I don't know if I'd like or not so I'm not going to. If I check it I might buy it so if anything the band can gain money from me listening rather than losing anything.

I would really appreciate it if you can give me an example of a new album that has no samples anywhere on the internet. Just about every band in existence has a myspace/bandcamp/soundcloud page or profile with samples of their music, and in fact I don't know of any examples of new releases that have had no samples from the past several years off the top of my head, so if you could point out a few exceptions to the rule, that would help strengthen your position. Hell is certainly not one of these cases, however, given that they have a music video on youtube...

I may have to clarify something a bit here: everything that I'm saying about downloading here I'm speaking generally and objectively. Subjectively, I don't really care about people downloading that much, and I especially don't really have an issue with people such as those on this forum that download simply to sample something on occasion and then delete the mp3s. But for every type of person such as yourself, there are even more that regularly download things with no intent to ever buy them and keep the mp3s forever. I have even had conversations with people who think people who buy music are completely stupid and that everybody should download everything for free. So when I say certain things, I don't mean to personally attack you or anybody specifically. I'm just trying to discuss the issues surrounding piracy as generally and objectively as I can. Because objectively, what's wrong with illegal downloading, regardless of why you downloaded it or whether or not you delete what you download, is that you are taking possession of something that you are not permitted to possess. I would imagine that it's fairly universally agreed upon that people should not own things that they should not own, even if the reason that they should not own said thing is the way that thing was acquired.

So my examples are ridiculous but your contast comparission between downloading and murder is not? As I said, things aren't black and white and not agreeing with a law doesn't mean not agreeing with any of them and being ok with murder. Hyperbole much?

Well, there's a difference between ridiculousness (like Hell should have no problem with people downloading their BRAND NEW STUDIO ALBUM because the only reason they have the status they do is because people tape traded and downloaded their demos) and hyperbole (using murder in order to carry out an analogous example to its logical extreme in order to prove the point that the original example is absurd). You said that we should suspect that there's something wrong with the idea that downloading is stealing because the mainstream media fed that idea to you. If everything that the mainstream media fed to us should be considered suspicious of being wrong, then that would also apply to murder, since the mainstream media feeds us that concept as well. So my point was that it's not because the mainstream media feeds us this idea that it could be potentially wrong, but rather something else, if it is indeed wrong at all. I'd also like to point out that I wasn't necessarily defending the last statement, but merely explaining it by using the bystander effect.

[Dodens Grav]

The issue is not about "stealing albums", it's about choosing to listen to a release in its entirety to make up your mind whether it's worth spending money on or not.

What exactly makes you think that you are entitled to do this via any means? Why do you think that you have the right to do this (hint, you actually don't; just because you can physically do something doesn't mean that doing said thing is justified).

Too bad if that means certain bands don't end up getting as much money because people decide to make informed purchases instead, and are not happy with a sample here and there that gets tossed from the master's table. So if anyone, Cochino included as you called him stupid, says they want to hear the whole album before shelling out so as not to be disappointed, and you say it must be done legally, even though it comes down to the same damn end result is just a really pointless argument - oh my god broke the lawz.

I don't understand why you're incapable of getting a sufficient idea of an album by the samples and reviews readily available online. Are you that unfamiliar with your likes and dislikes that you can't get a proper idea of whether or not you would like something? As I said in the above post, I never download; I use samples and reviews, and I buy hundreds of albums a year, and it's been years since I actually bought something that I didn't like. Certainly I don't have special powers that make my scenario unique, so I struggle to understand when people bring up this idea that they need to hear an entire album repeatedly before they know whether or not they might like an album.

And no, it doesn't "come down to the same damn end result", not semantically. To use the murder metaphor that you love so much, if you see a blind man about to walk over the edge of a cliff and you push him, it is a different end result than if you didn't push him, even though both scenarios end up with a blind man falling off a cliff and dying. In one instance, he had an unfortunate accident that couldn't be avoided because he couldn't see; in the other, he was callously murdered in a way that was easily avoidable. So to suggest that borrowing a CD from a friend and illegally downloading the same CD, both with the purpose of sampling it to decide whether or not you want to buy it, are identical scenarios is not entirely accurate. One is perfectly fine and normal and the other is unethical and illegal. You can keep making jokes about the arbitrary nature of laws, but it's not simply about legality. There's sound logic behind it.

Technically it should also be illegal to blast music from your car stereo etc. so others may hear it right?

Technically no. That is a private use of your own possession. I understand what you're attempting to prove here, but no, you don't have to sit alone in your house, huddled in darkness, listening to everything in muffled headphones in a sound proofed room. Other people are allowed to hear sounds emanating from speakers that are read off of a CD or vinyl that you own. What you're not allowed to do is upload mp3s to distribute, burn a CD-R for somebody else to keep, or directly profit monetarily from a public performance of said recording, all of which, I would argue, are fair. Allowing somebody to borrow your CD is completely different from burning somebody a CD-R because it's not duplicating and distributing copyrighted material. The other party never actually owns your CD unless you sell or give it to him, after which it would be unethical to keep mp3s you ripped from the CD since you no longer hold the rights to said CD, including but not limited to ripping the content for personal use.

That "murder is wrong" is something that has come about becasue of its detrimental nature to human society and advance.

That "piracy is wrong" is something that has come about because of its detrimental nature to human society and advance.

I shouldn't even have to point out that it is in fact not always wrong, convicts are legally executed, people are murdered in war, governments maneuver to control the population, animals are tortured and murdered every day, and so forth, the morality of the matter seems largely circumstancial.

Executions, casualties of war, food processing/farming/hunting, and assassinations are not considered murder. The morality of murder is not circumstantial; the morality of killing is circumstantial.

Nevertheless you would be arguing against reality, you can cry crime all you want but saying it's wrong doesn't mean it won't continue. This isn't an argument to steer people away from ever indulging the "sin" it's just a moral outcry that has no physical affect.

daniel, at what point did I ever suggest that a logical argument would stop people from downloading? I don't discuss this issue because I think I'm going to change anything, although, who knows, I might change a mind or two, and I actually have in the past. Do you honestly think all arguments take place with the assumption that the end result will be some kind of change in the world? You of all people, with the amount of arguments that you get into, should be aware of this.

Actually Quietus posts pretty much implied it didn't matter what I said precisely becasue of how I came about hearing the music in question.

I absolutely disagree with this, although in essence it's not really important at all. Do you honestly think quietus would have cared about what you thought of Hell's new album if you bought it? From what I've read of his posts, he never cares about what anyone thinks about anything or for any reason. His issue was obviously the topic of downloading, which is why we're talking about it now, and why we're talking about it in a separate thread, because it's not about Hell. It's about downloading.

If it's available for download someone most likey DID already buy it Though this wasn't about any "maybe someone else will buy it so it's ok for me to download it", it's about making an informed purchase, how many goddamn times does it need repeating - which goes back to your "if you spent money and don't like it you're stupid" point

I'm not exactly well-informed about this, but aren't most release leaked well in advance of them being out? Reviewers, pressing plant and label workers leak them, although obviously consumers spread releases as well. Also, I didn't say "if you spent money and don't like it you're stupid". I said if you bought something that had samples to check out but didn't and then didn't like the album, that's your own fault. And again, I do not accept your "informed purchase" argument at all. First of all, the argument relies on the assumption that you have the right to this kind of "informed purchase" to which you allude, which is to listen to an album as much as you want until you decide whether or not to buy it. Secondly, it assumes that you can't be informed about a release through samples and reviews, of which I am a testament to the exact opposite. Whether or not you're allowed to sample a product, regardless of what it is, is (or should be) entirely up to the discretion of the seller or producer or creator, whether it's a hammer, a car, a house, a CD, a food product, a mattress, a phone, or a video game.

[Cochino]

Ok, I'm not really interested in replying to you point by point so I'm just gonna say a few things.
First, you admit that tape trading was unethical but did something good for the scene. How's that different from mp3s?
Second, I don't feel ripped off for not liking an album. I feel ripped off for having to pay for an album that I don't like. Lots of people felt screwed and ripped off by albums like Cold Lake and regretted spending the money on shit like that. This kinda thing is less common nowadays and guess why? Because people can listen to the music before buying the album. Just check the feedback on the latest Morbid Angel album. A lot of people who wanted to buy it won't be doing it because they could listen to some of it and realized it's a piece of shit. Sure, the band legally released samples but they did it because they know it's gonna get out there eventually and not all bands release samples anyway.
Third, about the copyright laws. Who's profitting more from them? Labels/lawyers or artists themselves? How many artists got screwed by labels who now own the rights to their music? Follow the money they say. Sure, you say it's the band's fault for being ignorant but that doesn't do anything but show that those laws were made for businessmen to take advantage of. Who do you think has the power to enforce such laws? Music artists? If that law is so strong now is because the ones getting the big bucks aren't a bunch of guys with a guitar, that's for sure. And I don't think it's irrelevant to the issue since you're talking about not breaking the laws and this is proof that laws can be bullshit and can be used to fuck the artists way more than any guy downloading some mp3s will ever do.

And when I said the mainstream media is interested in screwing me, I didn't mean me and only me, personally. I meant guys like me. I don't think anybody would've interpreted otherwise, but I guess I was wrong.

And if you say it's killing record sales, how come there is so many labels, so many bands, so many releases is many different formats? People must love to lose money. The underground movement is huge nowadays. You have hundreds of bands in every single genre releasing lots of material from every single corner of the planet. 20 years ago, how many bands from third world countries could have legit releases distributed all over the world as they do now? Are you sure the underground is smaller now than it was back in the 80s? I think the amount of offer is the thing that's having the most negative impact in sales these days. Too many bands doing the same at the same time. Instead of having one selling 1000 records you have 10 selling 100.

And about that people who download and don't buy, those are the same kind of people who didn't buy back in the 80s or taped stuff from the radio or whatever. People interested in buying something still buy it, and those who don't, don't and never will. As I said many times before, how are there so many releases coming out day after day if nobody buys them?

[Vaggelis]

Sovjet Metal Rules!

[daniel]

What makes me think I have the right? Nothing, but I do it anyway because it makes my life easier, so I couldn't give less of a shit about what laws I'm breaking IN THIS CASE. Do I feel guilty? Nope. OH MAH FRIGGIN GAWD, Dan just admitted to having downloaded the album as well... He'll buy it, but he's still a dirty SINNER.

I'm incapable of getting a sufficient idea of an album from one or two samples because in some cases I'm not interested in what a fraction of the record is like if I'm not a huge fan of the band anyway. Certainly I've bought records having only heard two songs off it, but no matter what you harp on about I am not under moral obligation to myself to conduct myself in such a fashion in every situation. As for reviews, I usually like to read even more reviews after I've bought a record, and in general reviews are over the top positive.

"I struggle to understand when people bring up this idea that they need to hear an entire album repeatedly before they know whether or not they might like an album." Obviously that's your damn problem. I've got shitloads of records, I no longer find it essential to expand my collection rapidly, so apart from curious 2nd hand vinyl purchases I like to be more discerning nowadays.

The murder metaphor I love so much? You're the one who urged me to comment on it.

Your new example of the man and cliff is just damn stupid though, you're being a dramatic asshole about it. By the end result being the same I meant; music good = record gets bought, music shit = no purchase, and wouldn't have occurred anyway, trying to go over the top and compare the damage done to murder is cheap, essentially there is NO damage done other than as a legal technicality. To get so pedantic about how that result was reached is... whatever.

Murder/killing, nothing but semantics, justified by circumstancial law - "murder" isn't simply a legal term, and I am NOT going to take you seriously on this matter if you contend the law is the only thing we can adhere to.

Following comment was because I don't see the point of your fervour... and then you drop the bomb you '"don't really mind", so you're just being an asshole for the sake of it.

Rips of releases keep coming out all the time.

[Dodens Grav]

Okay, you're still making a lot of assumptions about what I think, and I'm not even following how you're coming up with some of them.

First, you admit that tape trading was unethical but did something good for the scene. How's that different from mp3s?

I don't recall saying that it was different. Both have helped and hindered music to varying degrees and varying ways, yet that has nothing to do with the ethics and legality of either. I'm arguing about ethics and legality, not theory versus practice. Again, what ought to be, not what is. I understand what 'is' and understand that what is is not all bad or all good.

Second, I don't feel ripped off for not liking an album. I feel ripped off for having to pay for an album that I don't like. Lots of people felt screwed and ripped off by albums like Cold Lake and regretted spending the money on shit like that. This kinda thing is less common nowadays and guess why? Because people can listen to the music before buying the album. Just check the feedback on the latest Morbid Angel album. A lot of people who wanted to buy it won't be doing it because they could listen to some of it and realized it's a piece of shit. Sure, the band legally released samples but they did it because they know it's gonna get out there eventually and not all bands release samples anyway.

Are you sure "ripped off" is the term that you want to use? Being ripped off is buying an album and never getting it...not buying an album, getting it, and not liking it. Maybe you're extremely disappointed and aggravated when you buy an album you don't like, but you're not being ripped off...like, at all. It doesn't even make sense. What you bought was the CD, not the enjoyment that you hope to get out of it. The band/label/store fulfilled their obligation to you by writing, recording, producing, and selling a product to you. They can't control whether or not you'll think it's a piece of shit, so it's not fair to say that you were "ripped off". And, by the way, reviews existed back in the 80s too...you could have known what you were getting into with Cold Lake if you took the time to do some reading. "You" the general 'you' of course.

Third, about the copyright laws. Who's profitting more from them? Labels/lawyers or artists themselves? How many artists got screwed by labels who now own the rights to their music? Follow the money they say. Sure, you say it's the band's fault for being ignorant but that doesn't do anything but show that those laws were made for businessmen to take advantage of. Who do you think has the power to enforce such laws? Music artists? If that law is so strong now is because the ones getting the big bucks aren't a bunch of guys with a guitar, that's for sure. And I don't think it's irrelevant to the issue since you're talking about not breaking the laws and this is proof that laws can be bullshit and can be used to fuck the artists way more than any guy downloading some mp3s will ever do.

It's unfair to say that copyright laws are written for businesses because they have taken advantage of ignorant artists. Laws are there to protect people's rights, but it's up to the people to be able to understand how to utilize the laws to protect themselves. If a band doesn't copyright their material or signs a contract that gives away their rights to their music, that's entirely on them because they volunteered to be in that situation. They decided that it was more in their interest to sign over their rights in order to get their music out than it was to protect their rights and find some other, most likely lesser way of getting their music out. That's not to say that I don't have sympathy for bands that fell victim to corporate predators, but it's not the fault of the copyright law, it's, as I said earlier, a combination of the fault of the ignorance/willingness of the artist and the predatory record company. The band signed the contract just as 'you' bought the album. In neither scenario was the 'victim' party forced into signing or buying.

And when I said the mainstream media is interested in screwing me, I didn't mean me and only me, personally. I meant guys like me. I don't think anybody would've interpreted otherwise, but I guess I was wrong.

Who are 'guys like you' and how are they actively trying to screw you? Metalheads that download music? I don't think the mainstream media cares about metalheads that download music either... I don't understand how "the mainstream media" is trying to "screw guys like you", so you'll have to elaborate.

And if you say it's killing record sales, how come there is so many labels, so many bands, so many releases is many different formats? People must love to lose money.

Illegal downloading has directly contributed to vast declines in record sales for mainstream, pop culture artists. Based on a little research, for example, Britney Spears' first album sold 3 million copies in 6 weeks and over 8 million in its first year. Her 2007 album has sold 3 million copies worldwide to date. Likewise, the Backstreet Boys' first album sold almost 10 million in its first year. Their 2007 album isn't close to that to date either. These are just a couple of examples. Albums debuting at #1 on the billboard charts used to hit a couple million copies in the first couple weeks of sale. Today, it's more like a couple hundred. The recording industry makes a lot less on record sales now than they did 15 years ago, which was my point.

The underground movement is huge nowadays. You have hundreds of bands in every single genre releasing lots of material from every single corner of the planet. 20 years ago, how many bands from third world countries could have legit releases distributed all over the world as they do now? Are you sure the underground is smaller now than it was back in the 80s? I think the amount of offer is the thing that's having the most negative impact in sales these days. Too many bands doing the same at the same time. Instead of having one selling 1000 records you have 10 selling 100.

This is another one of those "I have no idea why you think that I think what you say that I do" instances. I never implied that the underground movement wasn't "huge" (at least in terms of number of bands/labels/releases; even in the underground most things sell less than they did 15 years ago, though the difference for heavy metal is less so than other genres because the popularity of metal plummeted in the early 90s anyway). The reason the underground is so big, and so much bigger now, however, is not because of booming record sales or anything, but the obvious reason: the advancement of technology. It's a LOT easier to know of, learn about, produce, and release music now than it was in the 90s or 80s. Unfortunately it's just as difficult, however, to WRITE music, which is why there's a lot more shit being released now, but I digress. I don't know where you derived that I think the underground is smaller now. I'm almost entirely positive that I didn't say anything that would allow one to assume this. The underground is so much more expansive, by far, now than it ever was that it's not even reasonable to consider anything to the contrary. The only way in which the underground is smaller now than in the 80s is in terms of its commercial success. Certainly what you said is a contributor to record sales, however, downloading absolutely has something to do with it as well, and most likely has just as much if not more to do with it. Oversaturation is a problem on many levels, including what you said, but it's certainly not the only problem.

And about that people who download and don't buy, those are the same kind of people who didn't buy back in the 80s or taped stuff from the radio or whatever. People interested in buying something still buy it, and those who don't, don't and never will. As I said many times before, how are there so many releases coming out day after day if nobody buys them?

Let me say this again, I've always been in agreement with this sentiment. What I'm doing here is speaking broadly and generally. Obviously not everybody that downloads anything is an evil scumbag, and obviously a lot of people use downloading as a facilitator of BUYING music. I was never arguing otherwise. I also never said nobody buys releases, but releases do sell less on average and it does impact some bands. Certain bands today tour a lot more now, for example, than they would have otherwise because they make more money touring than they do selling records because a lot of people take the attitude that "I can download the CD and then give the band money by going to their show and buying merch". But this wasn't about that, it was about whether or not illegally downloading is ethically/legally/logically permissible.

[daniel]

"Let me say this again, I've always been in agreement with this sentiment. What I'm doing here is speaking broadly and generally. Obviously not everybody that downloads anything is an evil scumbag, and obviously a lot of people use downloading as a facilitator of BUYING music. I was never arguing otherwise. I also never said nobody buys releases, but releases do sell less on average and it does impact some bands. Certain bands today tour a lot more now, for example, than they would have otherwise because they make more money touring than they do selling records because a lot of people take the attitude that "I can download the CD and then give the band money by going to their show and buying merch". But this wasn't about that, it was about whether or not illegally downloading is ethically/legally/logically permissible."

You're flip-flopping between opinions in the name of "conversation".

[Dodens Grav]

What makes me think I have the right? Nothing, but I do it anyway because it makes my life easier, so I couldn't give less of a shit about what laws I'm breaking IN THIS CASE. Do I feel guilty? Nope. OH MAH FRIGGIN GAWD, Dan just admitted to having downloaded the album as well... He'll buy it, but he's still a dirty SINNER.

You are ignorant if you don't see the difference between "what I am capable of doing" and "what I am entitled by right to do". Whether or not you're able to do something or whether or not doing something you don't have a right to do makes you feel guilty has nothing to do with whether or not you have a right to do it. I already know that you "couldn't give less of a shit", but it still doesn't matter whether or not you care. That doesn't change what rights you're entitled to. You accuse me of being pedantic and using hyperbole and then you equate my conversation with sin and evil and being a goody-two-shoes by not wanting to break the law. Obviously that's easier for you than actually refuting arguments. I never said you should feel guilty. I never even said that I want you to stop. But you still can't understand that this isn't about you or even me, but about the broader concept at hand. Maybe you're just a lazy thinker?

"I struggle to understand when people bring up this idea that they need to hear an entire album repeatedly before they know whether or not they might like an album." Obviously that's your damn problem. I've got shitloads of records, I no longer find it essential to expand my collection rapidly, so apart from curious 2nd hand vinyl purchases I like to be more discerning nowadays.

No, obviously it's your problem, because I can decide whether or not I want to buy something without entirely experiencing every facet of it.

The murder metaphor I love so much? You're the one who urged me to comment on it.

You must be a lazy thinker since this was obviously a joke.

Your new example of the man and cliff is just damn stupid though, you're being a dramatic asshole about it. By the end result being the same I meant; music good = record gets bought, music shit = no purchase, and wouldn't have occurred anyway, trying to go over the top and compare the damage done to murder is cheap, essentially there is NO damage done other than as a legal technicality. To get so pedantic about how that result was reached is... whatever.

To get so lazy logically and so angry over a properly constructed analogy is... whatever. Also, please refrain from trying to use my occasional usage of namecalling as some feeble means of discrediting my arguments in the future after referring to me as a dramatic asshole. If you're too lazy or unable to refute my arguments, then you might as well not get involved with me. Besides, with your example, it's not necessarily the case that there's no damage done. If somebody downloads mp3s but doesn't like it enough to buy it, yet keeps the mp3s anyway and occasionally listens to it, that is damage.

Murder/killing, nothing but semantics, justified by circumstancial law - "murder" isn't simply a legal term, and I am NOT going to take you seriously on this matter if you contend the law is the only thing we can adhere to.

The difference between murder and killing is obvious to a kindergartener. Murder is always killing. Killing is not always murder. And there's no possible way that you could have read everything I've said and deduce it to me simply deferring to law and legality. Are you murdering somebody that asks you to help them kill themselves?

Following comment was because I don't see the point of your fervour... and then you drop the bomb you '"don't really mind", so you're just being an asshole for the sake of it.

I believe you are the one with the "fervour" here. You were the one that called me out for not reading an entire post after I just made a few short posts explaining something that was being discussed. My position is that it's unethical/unlawful/illogical in general to download, but that within that context it can and is used as responsibly as an unethical/unlawful/illogical act can be used. I do take issue with people who constantly download and never buy, but why would I, subjectively, be seriously bothered if somebody occasionally downloads an album to decide whether or not it's worth buying and then deleting the mp3s? You need to learn how to separate objectivity and subjectivity if you think I'm "just being an asshole."

[Dodens Grav]

"Let me say this again, I've always been in agreement with this sentiment. What I'm doing here is speaking broadly and generally. Obviously not everybody that downloads anything is an evil scumbag, and obviously a lot of people use downloading as a facilitator of BUYING music. I was never arguing otherwise. I also never said nobody buys releases, but releases do sell less on average and it does impact some bands. Certain bands today tour a lot more now, for example, than they would have otherwise because they make more money touring than they do selling records because a lot of people take the attitude that "I can download the CD and then give the band money by going to their show and buying merch". But this wasn't about that, it was about whether or not illegally downloading is ethically/legally/logically permissible."

You're flip-flopping between opinions in the name of "conversation".

No, you're simply unable to understand what it is I'm actually saying. And that is your own issue, not mine. Direct your vitriol elsewhere.

[Trigger]

You really think that most labels don't hurt the bands one way or the other?You really think that bands get benefited directly from labels and record sales?Why the heavy metal trend got diminished and later vanguished in the 80's then?Whose fault do you believe that was?