Since the topic is being discussed, I was curious to see how the people here feel about it

Inertia Posted:

Is bootleg where they record gigs and stuff? Usually the quality is horrible right?

It’s music piracy of any form. The term is derived from bootlegging alcohol during the prohibition.

Professor Commie PhD Posted:

It’s music piracy of any form. The term is derived from bootlegging alcohol during the prohibition.

Ah then I use it a lot.

I’ve only bought 3 music CDs in my life

i got rid of all my CDs in like 2005. i don’t even know where i could buy a CD anymore since all of the record stores around here (like tower records, sam goody, etc) have all closed. i guess i could order CDs online but who needs all that useless junk sitting around when you can just store it inside your computer.

i’ve paid for a subscription to emusic in the past, but their selection is p limited. i’ve bought albums and tracks from itunes, but getting around the protected files was a pain in the bum. i’ve heard itunes has changed this recently, so i’d consider paying for the download if i think the band deserves it. if it’s a lesser known band on an independent label, i’ll pay. but, for example, if i want an album by led zeppelin or red hot chili peppers, sorry but those ****ers don’t need an extra $10 from my pocket.

i used to use napster, kazaa, etc. back in the day, but since people have been getting sued for uploading and sharing files, i don’t use torrents anymore because i don’t want to lose my house or whatever. lately i’ve been getting new music by downloads from sites like rapidshare, megaupload, etc. and by sharing with friends via ftp or taking my external hard drive to their house.

my music collection is about 50 GB and i’d estimate maybe 35% of that i actually paid for. if a band i like is playing locally i’ll support them by going to their show and maybe buying something there like a shirt or a vinyl record. i don’t really feel bad about bootlegging since everyone does it, and so far i haven’t heard any stories about bands sleeping in the gutter because people are ‘stealing’ their music.

Raepdog Posted:

The idea that record companies are losing money from bootlegging is bull****. The idea that everyone that illegaly downloads a song or movie would have paid for the song or movie is an utter lie. If anything people are listening to music they never would have before.

I pretty much agree with this. The actual monetary loss from online sharing is not nearly as high as the companies would have you believe. Further, the ability to seek out music online means that people can sample songs that don’t get radio play, and choose to listen to (and buy records from) artists they would otherwise not have taken a chance on.

The record and movie industry want to blame piracy for their economic downturn, but when Napster was at its height back in the day, CD sales were rising. The fact is that companies are putting out an inferior product, and they’re not adapting to deal with the new models and competition offered by the internet. Rather than shift gears to deal with the world as it is, they’d rather scapegoat some poor kid who can’t afford their product and enjoys it, and try to get the law to mandate stasis so they can keep their model.

TL;DR: Is it wrong to steal intellectual property? Sure. Would theft of intellectual property be so rampant if companies would evolve for the internet era? Nope.

I have and always will pay for music from artists that I truly enjoy and think are deserving of my money. Other than that if it’s just an album I “kind of want” I typically pirate it knowing that about 50 cents of the $15 I pay for the CD will ever reach the artists bank account.

A song that sums up my feelings for the most part:

Raepdog Posted:

The idea that record companies are losing money from bootlegging is bull****. The idea that everyone that illegaly downloads a song or movie would have paid for the song or movie is an utter lie. If anything people are listening to music they never would have before.

You really live in your own world, don’t you.

51% of the music downloaded last year was done illegally. That’s 51% of the revenue they should’ve made. What other industry tolerates theft like that?

That means to just make the same amount of money they would have prior they’d have to DOUBLE the prices on the CDs or mp3s. Not only are you screwing over the company by stealing from them but you’re screwing over the law-abiding people who want to actually support the artists in question.

I’m a Music Business major here in Nashville. I get to see firsthand how crippling piracy is for these labels. As a result of mbumive amounts of money lost to internet music pirates, record labels are having to dip more and more over into the artists’ income, that they get from touring and merchandise sales.

So by being too cheap to pay for your own music, you’re simultaneously screwing over the record label, the artist, and everyone else who buys music legally.

And you think that no money is being lost here? Open your frickin’ eyes dude.

Raepdog Posted:

For money to be lost, money would have had to be spent. I don’t illegaly download music but just because their downloading it, doesn’t mean people would be buying it. Most people just wouldent listen to that much music.

Sure, like the guy that downloads 10,000 songs is really going to spend 6 grand on music. The idea that all of that downloading would have been bought is ridiculous. The record industry can’t stop what is happening and needs to adapt.

Or you can enjoy your music twice as much buy buying it legally and listening it thinking to yourself ‘Wow Im so much better than those pirate savages. Thank god for me the moral minority.’.

It’s a valid point, but at least SOME of that music would be legally bought. They might not spend $6,000 on it, but I’m sure they’d have at least 1,000 songs or so.

It’s not an issue of being “holier than the savages,” it’s an issue of paying people who deserve it. If some artist paints a new painting, if someone just walked in and took it cuz they wanted it, what kind of argument would “I’m too cheap to pay for it” be?

What kind of argument would “I just want to try it out and see if I like it” be?

In the real world, theft of property isn’t tolerated. Why is it tolerated online? Because it’s easier? Because everyone does it?

Here’s a shocker: not everything “everyone does” is right.

Shii Posted:

If some artist paints a new painting, if someone just walked in and took it cuz they wanted it, what kind of argument would “I’m too cheap to pay for it” be?

This is a pretty bad example, a more realistic one would be, an artist paint a beautiful painting. The company that represents the artist, has taken pictures of the work, and are selling these pictures at $15 each, just outside the museum.

If someone who is in fact, too cheap to pay $15 for said picture, walks in, and takes his own picture and leaves, how did the artist lose money?

Rather, the artist could have MADE MORE.

The whole “They lost 51% of revenue” argument should in fact be “We could’ve made 51% more revenue”.

Not only has the artist lost no money, even if every single song was purchased, the artist wouldn’t have made significantly more, due to the mbumive cut that the record industry takes.

Shii Posted:

It’s a valid point, but at least SOME of that music would be legally bought. They might not spend $6,000 on it, but I’m sure they’d have at least 1,000 songs or so.

It’s not an issue of being “holier than the savages,” it’s an issue of paying people who deserve it. If some artist paints a new painting, if someone just walked in and took it cuz they wanted it, what kind of argument would “I’m too cheap to pay for it” be?

What kind of argument would “I just want to try it out and see if I like it” be?

In the real world, theft of property isn’t tolerated. Why is it tolerated online? Because it’s easier? Because everyone does it?

Here’s a shocker: not everything “everyone does” is right.

Your examples are flawed in so many ways it’s difficult to count them. For one thing, downloading a song is nothing like stealing a painting. If anything, it’s like taking a photo of the painting. By downloading, I’m not stopping anyone from buying the song. As for “I just want to try it out and see if I like it”, that’s a perfectly reasonable argument. I would never spend $15 or whatever CDs cost these days on a CD from an artist I never heard of. I would, on the other hand, download the album, see if I like it and then, if I do, buy the CD. Artists don’t make their money from CD sales anyway; record companies do. The same record companies who always choose the lowest common denominator to feed to the mbumes and that have made intelligent, mind-stimulating music nearly extinct these days. You want to support an artist? Go to concerts, buy merch at gigs, let other people hear their music and tell them to see the artist live if they get the chance.