What's your view on illegal music downloads?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm interested that a lot of people on here freely admit to being huge P2P users and not really spending money on music. This differs to other music sites I post on, where, although I guess its accepted that most of us do some illegal downloading, most people also want to make it clear that they do spend money on music - even if that means spending a lot on gig tickets instead, or getting the leaks of big new albums but pre-ordering the vinyl if they like them.

Personally I stand somewhere in the middle - I think P2P sites have had some positive impact on music. I've noticed a lot of people have broader tastes now they don't have to spend £10 on a CD to decide if they like a band. And some up and coming bands actually appreciate the easy distribution of their music, especially on blogs that write something about it too. I definitely don't think people should have to part with money for something they haven't had a chance to hear - and a small minority of bands are still only offering 30 second clips of new songs for streaming. I also think labels are stupid not to release music as soon as its available - fans do get fed up with waiting with them orchestrating a press campaign while the music is ready, and some delays imposed by labels do seem particularly pointless. It pisses me off when an album download costs £6 or more - you don't have to create a physical product, store it or distribute it... I don't see where the cost comes from.

However, smaller bands and labels really do need the cash, and I think it's sad when people pay for literally nothing. Most bands have a reasonable amount available to stream online, on sites like myspace and last fm, so you can have an idea of what you're paying for. I use Emusic, which may not be comprehensive but it is fantastically cheap - I pay £20 a month for 100 downloads, so a 12 track album only costs me £2.40!! ! At the end of the day, you can't expect bands to carry on if they can't make money, (or at least cover their costs).

I don't know if any of you use Spotify, (huge library of streaming music in a player similar to iTunes) but if it can be made more comprehensive it will solve a lot of problems - people get to listen to music for free and the bands are given some ad money.

What does everyone think about this?

Peer to peer sites have killed the recording industry we are just waiting for it to roll over so we can bury it...

I can't believe that.

Still loads of amazing music coming out, loads of great new bands. Most labels are surviving - if not making the profit they did before. I haven't heard any rumours of bankruptcy among the majors.

But then, a lot of people do still buy music. And personally I think a lot of people always will. If they didn't, you might be right.

My views on it are that, its OK to download a few songs from bands, but if you actually like a band then buy their album. If you do not like the band and only like a handful of songs, then just download them. But if you like the band and want lots of their music, then buy the CD. By buying their CD you are showing support for the band and that you actually like them enough to buy their CD/CDs.

I say "go for it".

I say look for the song you want to download from iTunes or Amazon or wherever you get your music, but if you can't find it for some reason, it's okay to download it for free. But if you're going to get a lot of music, especially by the same artist, it'd probably be in your best legal interest to buy it.

i had a conversation, several years ago, with someone who was a major "name" in the industry (at one time). he said that he made almost nothing, if not having gone into the negative, on most of his recordings. a song that almost anyone over 30 would most likely recognize as a standard for the era, and for which he got a gold (platinum?) record, made him absolutely zilch. the music companies' accounting gurus found ways to nickel and dime him until there was no net proceeds. he made his money (and still does, i believe) touring. he also makes his music available both free and at cost online.

so, when i hear enough of a new cd of his that i like, i buy it. but as with any other musician/musical group/orchestra i do not buy blind - i want to have heard the whole thing through before i purchase it. if downloading is the only way to get a listen, that's what i'd most likely do.

He's pulling your leg, signed a crap deal, or he spent all the money on drugs and is embarrased about it...

The record companies and the artists are really 2 distinct entities. The artists might end up with crap, while the label rakes in the dough. If touring is really how they make most of their money, p2p doesn't really hurt the artists at all -- it's kind of like free advertising.

The labels used to add value to bands and listeners by providing a good distribution channel. Now the internet is faster and cheaper, and it lets listeners try out new things easier. So the labels are trying to sue the crap out of everyone to make up the difference, and it isn't working (as well as making a lot of people mad).

I don't have any sympathy for the labels -- if their old ways are failing, it's time to come up with something new. But they're too used to the old way of raking in the dough for practically nothing, so the work of actually coming up with something new is scary.

Just because the labels are generally jerks and scammers doesn't justify breaking the law, though.

simply put:

if i was the artist/creator, i'd be bugged about it.

but im neither

I think this is where I draw the ethical line - CAN you buy it?

If its available for sale, your best bet is to buy it - even if your just buying it from amazon.com or a popular genre forum in mp3 format for 99 cents; its really just an issue of respect. On the other hand, for performers, I do think it helps exposure but I also think at least in top 40 genres distribution is key and to have a network as such it takes keeping a close eye on whether or not the artists or producers are being paid as well as the people who blew them up on the airwaves.

That said, I have a pretty big collection but, its a collection of stuff that was sold on vinyl and stuff that I'd have next to no hope of even finding used on Ebay in EP format even.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 22 Mar 2009, 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I buy albums because I like physically owning stuff and also because the order of the song collections gets messed up when songs are downloaded individually (especially if some songs can't be found) and I cannot bear this.

It shows me that, no matter how great of a musician I am, I can't expect to make money by selling music I've recorded.

I think its now obvious that the business model will change, but actually I think some of the labels are slowly realising that. Spotify could only happen because it had the backing of all the major labels - which means they've agreed to stream albums in full, for free! This could point towards a business model in which we mainly stream music without owning it, but advertising between songs gets money back to the labels. Alongside good quality, cheap downloads, I think that could be great.

It seems like everyone here is talking about major labels... of course a lot of music is released on indies and I have a lot more sympathy for them, most of them aren't out to make massive amounts of money but just love the bands they release.



It might be harder to make a lot of money on a major label, but if you wanted to release it independently without any label, it would be much easier for you to do that with the internet, and any profit would be yours.

Usually I download music via P2P if it's unavailable via retail in America (most video game soundtracks). To be honest, P2P downloading should be decriminalized for non-profit distribution. Corporations should go after the real pirates, people who sell the the same music in bootleg CDs.

A few of my friends are musicians. Yes, they probably earn some money by playing live gigs, but why should people download their music for free? Not all musicians are multi-squillionnaires, y'know, some of them are just jobbing musicians who are just getting by financially and need the money. It's their job, they need paying for what they do. It's not a hobby.