CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

i am going to take no opinion in this matter and please don't get too incredibly defensive about this topic. i just wanna know what the majority of people think.

Edit: sorry i posted this in the wrong section, mods!

I believe it is indeed wrong to do (well music that is published/owned by a record company)

I belive threads placed on the wrong boards to be an equal offense.

Personally I would have to have agreed with Mr SmartyPants... but then I was thinking a while back, music downloading is causing your computer to memorize a song and then replay the exact information over again. Don't we do the same things when we listen to our favorite songs on the radio and then memorize them, playing them over and over again in our brains for pleasure, (or pain sometimes, ever have a song you can't get out of your head?) . If music downloading to our computers is wrong, is memorizing music into our brain without purchasing the rights to it equally wrong?

As far as I'm concerned however, I believe in purchasing music that I listen to. But I disagree with the idea of "intelectual property" . If some other musician can play the music he has equal rights to publish his own CD as far I'm concerned. Or for instance if I purchace a video game with music on it, I believe that I have the rights to the "Exact" music that is on the game if it is provided somewhere. After all everyone would laugh if there were a cost to make use of newton's laws or algebraic equations, but why should these far more treasured articles of intellectual thought be given any less value than a temporary phase of music or art?

anyways, those are my thoughts,

Pascal

carneman wrote:i am going to take no opinion in this matter and please don't get too incredibly defensive about this topic. i just wanna know what the majority of people think.

Option 3: Depends on what you're sharing... There are public domain songs and otherwise legal (legal to share but not sell), songs you own on CD but want alternate (concert bootleg) versions of, then there's songs you own on cd's that won't play because a cd that was in your cd case mysteriously ened up in the dorm CD player with a crack in it...

That's the one I'd choose...

I think... it depends. A lot of artists today write music just to write music. To them, money is a secondary thing and they don't mind when it hits the P2P networks. In such a case... kewl, I guess. Otherwise... naw.

Download.com has an awsome supply of Indie everything to satisfy the early adapters and enough pop (Postal Service, Yeah Yeah Yeahs) to make the tweens leap with joy.
iTunes has an awsome service as well.

But like stealing cable, its always going to be pretty sweet to have but in the end you do pay a price.

I choose option three. But peer to peer filesharing is not cool or legal in my opinion.

I feel that it is wrong to download anything that is illegal to share. Copyrighted works and whatnot.

However, that is only because of the legality and I think Christians should abide by the law.

I should also mention that sharing a song or two with a friend (someone you know, not a group of anonymous people on a P2P network) is fine, just as making a mix-tape was back when we used to do that stuff. Actually, it's free publicity for the artist that way since it is generally part of "word of mouth" promotion ("Hey, man, check these guys out!").

Now, while I attempt to follow the law, I do believe music, as art, should be freely available. Sell albums, sure. I'll buy still. I think that's great. But why is music such a big-money business? It is an art. People should be doing it for the sake of expression. If I am an artist, sure I want to make enough to make a living, but the number one priority is to express myself and have others experience that expression.

I have mentioned before in another thread on this subject that this is why I am impressed with the trance music community. Yes, they do have albums that are copyrighted just like everyone. But there are tons of tracks and DJ mixes available free and legal on the net. And not just from small timers. There's lots of stuff from big DJ's like Armin van Buuren (though not so much anymore), Astral Projection, Paul van Dyk, Cor Fijneman, and Ferry Corsten.

I've always been partial on this topic since I both buy CD albums and download music. I choose the "It depends" option.

You should pay for what you use. That is a simple rule to live by.

Legally speaking, the courts have so far upheld your right to do anything you want with the music you buy. You can download it, upload, make new CD's, etc. The only thing you can't do is re-sell it. Giving it away for free is fuzzy-gray area. Give it to one or two people and you are probably OK, give it to a lot of people and you may be in trouble.

My opinion? Let your conscience be your guide. If you can, in good conscience and with out feeling guilty, download music, then you are free to do so. But if you do, you had best not be the type of person who gets angry when some one in turn takes advantage of you.

Pascal wrote:Personally I would have to have agreed with Mr SmartyPants... but then I was thinking a while back, music downloading is causing your computer to memorize a song and then replay the exact information over again. Don't we do the same things when we listen to our favorite songs on the radio and then memorize them, playing them over and over again in our brains for pleasure, (or pain sometimes, ever have a song you can't get out of your head?) . If music downloading to our computers is wrong, is memorizing music into our brain without purchasing the rights to it equally wrong?

As far as I'm concerned however, I believe in purchasing music that I listen to. But I disagree with the idea of "intelectual property" . If some other musician can play the music he has equal rights to publish his own CD as far I'm concerned. Or for instance if I purchace a video game with music on it, I believe that I have the rights to the "Exact" music that is on the game if it is provided somewhere. After all everyone would laugh if there were a cost to make use of newton's laws or algebraic equations, but why should these far more treasured articles of intellectual thought be given any less value than a temporary phase of music or art?

anyways, those are my thoughts,

Pascal

Although I don't particularly agree with everything you said, you do bring up arguments I've not heard before. Nice.


Here is my opinion and it relates only to myself:
I choose, like others, the "it depends" option. If one is downloading almost entire albums/cds online and never purchasing anything released by the artist, I think it's abusing the situation. I DO download songs, but I download samples, just a few songs here and there, most of the time. This past year, I can't tell you how many ALBUMS I've actually purchased just because I downloaded a few songs here and there from artists from each album. I'd listen to one song and go "Oh...that sounds nice. I wonder if the awesomeness is consistent", and so I'd download a few more. If I did indeed find the awesomeness to be consistent, I would trot myself to the store and buy the artists's album. I actually buy MANY more cds now that I download songs off of the internet. You can get a sample of artists from radios, yes, but what about more underground bands like Postal Service or Copeland or Further Seems Forever, for example? Around here, you would NEVER hear that type of music on the radio, and I never would have become a raving Copeland fangirl, buying merchandise to support them left and right. Downloading a few songs here and there has actually enabled me to be exposed to some great music, support the artists AND get my friends involved, which results in a higher fanbase.

As far as one IM to another IM music file sharing, I agree with something someone else has said...it's kind of like when we were kids and making mixed tapes to share with our friends. MOST of the music I receive from friends is music they've bought or music of artists they've financially contributed to in some way.

Hmmm, is it an "Inapropriate peer to teen choice behavior?"
I dont think so.
If I buy a CD, I feel that it is my right to share it with my friends. Should I put it online so that anyone could get it for free? Probably not. But if I want to let my friend borrow and burn my CD, I dont think that is something that ought to be regulated.

I don't do P2P anymore...too much of a pain. I get music from friends from time to time, though. Then if it's good, I buy it when I get the chance. If I don't like it, I delete it.

The only CDs I download without buying are Japanese CDs, because let's face it, 40 bucks is a heck of a lot for one CD. I buy the US releases if they come out, though.

Steeltemplar wrote:Now, while I attempt to follow the law, I do believe music, as art, should be freely available. Sell albums, sure. I'll buy still. I think that's great. But why is music such a big-money business? It is an art. People should be doing it for the sake of expression. If I am an artist, sure I want to make enough to make a living, but the number one priority is to express myself and have others experience that expression.

In that respect, I believe that should be the decision of the artist. If an artist wants to freely share his/her expression with the world, then that's great! If they actually need to put food on the table that month, who are we to say that we should be able to enjoy their work for free? Just because an artist enjoys what they do, doesn't mean people shouldn't pay them for the privilege of enjoying it as well.

I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but I had to make a point. As a sculptor, I can liken some of what goes on in P2P file sharing with someone making a mold of my sculpture, casting hundreds of pieces, and giving them away. Someone who otherwise might have bought it from me, the artist, can now get it for free -- so it hurts my livelihood.

So... I think P2P file sharing is wrong WHEN people are downloading music merely to avoid paying for it. However, I think it's perfectly fine if someone already owns the rights to a song, or listens to samples and then buys what they like. I have several cassette tapes (yes, cassette tapes... I am that old) that I would like to have on CD. I think it's perfectly fine for me to download the songs from the tapes I own. Hence I don't think it's inherently wrong to upload music to share. The wrongness happens on the other end, when people take and take and never buy.

EireWolf wrote:In that respect, I believe that should be the decision of the artist. If an artist wants to freely share his/her expression with the world, then that's great! If they actually need to put food on the table that month, who are we to say that we should be able to enjoy their work for free? Just because an artist enjoys what they do, doesn't mean people shouldn't pay them for the privilege of enjoying it as well.

I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but I had to make a point. As a sculptor, I can liken some of what goes on in P2P file sharing with someone making a mold of my sculpture, casting hundreds of pieces, and giving them away. Someone who otherwise might have bought it from me, the artist, can now get it for free -- so it hurts my livelihood.

So... I think P2P file sharing is wrong WHEN people are downloading music merely to avoid paying for it. However, I think it's perfectly fine if someone already owns the rights to a song, or listens to samples and then buys what they like. I have several cassette tapes (yes, cassette tapes... I am that old) that I would like to have on CD. I think it's perfectly fine for me to download the songs from the tapes I own. Hence I don't think it's inherently wrong to upload music to share. The wrongness happens on the other end, when people take and take and never buy.

I would say you do have a point about that. One should have control over one's own creation. I would not be hasty to suggest that copyright law be changed.

However, I would say that I admire artists more who are more free about their work. I know that I personally will gladly buy an album that I think is good.

Also, as we have found with the incredible abundance of free content of other kinds on the internet, there is more than one way to make a living off of art. To see some cases that prove my point, look at popular online comics and animation sites such as PVP, Homestarrunner, and Megatokyo. Their content is free. And yet they make a living by selling content related product. I think this is a model which is one that will grow in the future.

EireWolf wrote:So... I think P2P file sharing is wrong WHEN people are downloading music merely to avoid paying for it. However, I think it's perfectly fine if someone already owns the rights to a song, or listens to samples and then buys what they like. I have several cassette tapes (yes, cassette tapes... I am that old) that I would like to have on CD. I think it's perfectly fine for me to download the songs from the tapes I own. Hence I don't think it's inherently wrong to upload music to share. The wrongness happens on the other end, when people take and take and never buy.

I thought I needed to comment on that. To say it's not wrong to upload though it is wrong to download makes me think of the person who buys a ticket to the movies and lets his friends in through the emergency exits. Technically any uploading is not right, though the reason is not always done for bad motives. A friend has exposed me to some kinds of music that I used to decide whether or not I would buy an album or not. I have bought many albums on account of the music I was exposed to (perhaps too many).

I have uploaded for the same purpose. However I do not assume that I have the unfettered right to share music I bought.

As for the transfer from tape to mp3, I think you have the right to make your own transfer. However it becomes a slippery slope to have someone else do it. Is this something you still own? Or is it something you once owned years ago? Or does it slip to "material by an artist I had an album from... etc.

Not pointing any fingers here. Just putting im my reflections. In the end everyone needs to follow their conscience

In my opinion, if you'd paid for the song in the past, it's not wrong to get a new copy of it through other means, as long as the artist has all ready been paid for their work.

i think downloading is like alot of ppl have said very iffy in my oppion downloading like 1 or 2 songs(2 see if u like the band or not) isn't wrong but downloading a full album with no intention of buying that cd in the future (i download only things i am gonna buy later)is wrong

i tend to go by hte general rule that i would buy CDs ans stuff if there readily available, but i download stuff that for example onle gets japanese releases, is hard to track down/ import etc. i also download sample songs say if i wanna see if i wanna bu a cd and dunnop if i'll like it i'll d/l a bit and see if its my thing, of whether to save the cash for something else.

I'm just gonna say this, I believe downloading music is not wrong at all. It's not hurting the music business any and the people who record the music aren't hurt from it because when you think about it, they get all the money they want from concerts, CDs, recordings, etc. and a simple download doesn't look like it will lose them any.

I mean, what's the point of buying a $20-$50 CD for only one song out of the whole thing, that's silly. I'd just go download it instead.

I download songs all the time, because to me their is no need for me to have 50 CD's for only one song out of each CD from the entire 50 of them.

Now selling your downloaded music for money, THAT is wrong, THAT is piracy.

ShiroiHikari wrote:I don't do P2P anymore...too much of a pain. I get music from friends from time to time, though. Then if it's good, I buy it when I get the chance. If I don't like it, I delete it.

The only CDs I download without buying are Japanese CDs, because let's face it, 40 bucks is a heck of a lot for one CD. I buy the US releases if they come out, though.

I think that is an excellent rule of thumb, so to speak. If you like it, buy it - otherwise delete it. If you can't buy it for a reasonable (far market value) price, take it, but buy it if it becomes available. Well said.

CephasVII wrote:I'm just gonna say this, I believe downloading music is not wrong at all. It's not hurting the music business any and the people who record the music aren't hurt from it because when you think about it, they get all the money they want from concerts, CDs, recordings, etc. and a simple download doesn't look like it will lose them any.

I mean, what's the point of buying a $20-$50 CD for only one song out of the whole thing, that's silly. I'd just go download it instead.

I download songs all the time, because to me their is no need for me to have 50 CD's for only one song out of each CD from the entire 50 of them.

Now selling your downloaded music for money, THAT is wrong, THAT is piracy.

I would say you are not necessarily wrong, but your opinion is dangerous. The belief that "you are not hurting anyone" is what I'm talking about. I sounds like you are trying to rationalize your behavior. (And I'm not trying to attack you Cephas, so if I come off that way, I apologize). Just because someone has multiple sources of income doesn't make it right to deny them money from one of the sources. Not all musicians are wealthy and not all of them do a lot of live appearances.

Whether or not that should change your practices or opinions is up to you - I was commenting more on your argument than its validity.

Fair enough

the title of the thread "Music downloading wrong?" kind of bugs me, as i buy all of my music online, and aftr paying 88-99 cets a song "download" it... the poll question is more appropriately phrased.

just an fyi

Conner999 wrote:Downloading DOESN'T hurt anyone if the person downloading isn't going to buy something in the first place. Nobody is getting money either way, so it doesn't really matter.

Of course they're not going to buy it if they are going to download it. But if downloading isn't an option, they might well decide to buy it.

Conner999 wrote:Downloading DOESN'T hurt anyone if the person downloading isn't going to buy something in the first place. Nobody is getting money either way, so it doesn't really matter.

If he's not going to buy it anyway, then he has no right to download it. Either way, the artist does not get reimbursed, but if he downloads it, he gets something for nothing. This is just a rationalization for justifying something that is illegal.

The artist has a right to earn a living from his or her work. The listener has a right to reject the cost of an album or song and not buy it, but the listener has no justification for downloading for free something that is intended for sale.

To be honest, I mainly download for sampling purposes. I mean, what sense does it make to hear about how good a band is, buy the CD without sampling, and realize that you think they suck? If I like the band, I'll buy the CD... but if I only like one song, then it's straight to downloading.

I also download albums when I don't have a way of getting something in the US, like J-pop, anime and game soundtracks, and the like. If I do find it, however (such is the case with my Onimusha 3 soundtrack), I'll buy the CD.

Does anyone understand how that works at all?

Downloading music from share programs and the like can be iffy. But there is obviously nothing wrong with pay for download services like iTunes, Rhapsody, AllofMp3, etc.

CephasVII wrote:I'm just gonna say this, I believe downloading music is not wrong at all. It's not hurting the music business any and the people who record the music aren't hurt from it because when you think about it, they get all the money they want from concerts, CDs, recordings, etc. and a simple download doesn't look like it will lose them any.

Termyt already made some good points about this. I think one problem with your logic here is... what happens when more people are downloading illegally than are buying CDs or MP3s legitimately? Then the artists are not getting fairly paid. It sounds like a good justification to you, and it may make you feel better, but if you download music just so you don't have to pay for it, it's still called "stealing."

I'm not saying it's never okay to download music. (Read my first post in this thread if you want my opinion on it.)