Just Curious - Please Answer With Honesty...

[can-o-phish]

For those of you who download shows from various bit torrent sites and trade music, do you also purchase CD's/Albums of the artists you are downloading? %-wise 50/50, 60/40, 70/30...that sorta thing...

Do you copy a store-bought CD instead of buying it?

Please share your thoughts on this matter as I've had many recent conversations from both sides of the fence raising interesting points...

[StoneMtn]

I buy CDs directly from musicians at virtually ever show I attend. I also download shows, and often that is far more music than is available to buy from the band, so the ratio would be less purchased than downloaded.

I'll admit that I also copy studio discs from friends. If it's a smaller, independent band and I like the disc I also purchase a copy of that disc at my first opportunity; generally when I see the band play. (Of course, the reason I'm seeing them play is that I have a copy of their disc, so the band already benefits from me having that bootleg copy, as soon as I purchase a couple tickets to see them live.)

[Alexis]

downloading live music makes me want to go buy the studio if i like it. i will support the music i get for free (the hundreds of disks, hundreds of hours) by paying $15 or $20 for a studio.

i do prefer, however, to buy directly from the band if at all possible. specially with bands from the US. it's A LOT cheaper to buy from them when they're here, or through their website then have HMV order it in.

i also buy a lot of used records, if i can get it used, i'll take it, rather than buying new.

[can-o-phish]

So far I'm happy to have read the responses...yes, buying from the band directly is a great thing as most of the "middlemen" are removed as so much of the work these days putting out a release is handled, for the most part, by the band/artist...

I know this isn't an original or new topic/post and has been discussed by most here on this board, but for me who occasionally records bands it is something that I'd like to have a better feel or understanding of as the last thing I'd want is for a band to lose revenue after sinking their hard-earned cash into producing CDs, buying equipment, gear, printing flyers, website development, etc etc etc...

[Esau.]

CDs or DVDs

• I only download live music
  
• I never download official releases (except a single song or two once in awhile)
  
• I buy official releases from the bands or music store
  
• I always try to buy the bands CD/DVD if I record them
  

[Alexis]

i dont' think you're hindering their economic progress CoP, you're helping them in the long run.

[SaggyBalls]

i don't have much of a code since i have never really been an album junkie...i only have about 150-200 CDs...well maybe as many as 250

i don't have any music on my computer - never really been a downloader yet i am a total advocate.

i prefer to have the CD or record (when i have a turntable) and have no qualms about copying a CD.

I generally don't set aside the disposable income for buying merch at shows and CDs at stores. If i had the loot i'd spend it but i don't generally think to shop most of the time.

for a band to say that they are at a loss they are diluding themselves with fallably ethical business logic. Not making the sale is no loss. with no music to get into many people never think to go to shows and bring their friends and drink their faces off.

live shows are generally the most neutral ground, but any way for people to get into music will be a positive thing even if it seems like a bunk deal.

I believe it is important to be open with your fans. holding back and not sharing creates duality - a separation between artist and fan. having to sell it to you rather than just sharing with the fan, where s/he will then most likely become involved by paying attention

...and then perhaps buy a t shirt or copy of the album or know that the fan will probably come back and even possibly suggest that friends check out the artist.

really...why is this still an issue to people?

do you need direct results?

[hamilton]

CDs or DVDs

• I only download live music
  
• I never download official releases (except a single song or two once in awhile)
  
• I buy official releases from the bands or music store
  
• I always try to buy the bands CD/DVD if I record them
  

Exactly what he said (with the exception of the last point, and that's only because I don't record shows myself).

[Ms.Huxtable]

Here's the normal evalution of my listening mediums. This has been the case with almost everything in our collection. It is definitely the case with the sisters, the slip, the duo, and on and on.

1. Go see a live band at the recommendation of someone. Love them.

2. Download whatever live shows we can. Fall in love with the songs.

3. Need to go to as many of their shows as possible. Need to own everything they ever sell. Buy CDs, DVDs and t-shirts.

4. Spread the word.

Yes, we download an awful lot of music, but it's never studio stuff. If we want it, we would normally buy it on itunes or direct from the bands.

[Velvet]

I don't download music (mental issues, not moral ones) so my vote is moot, but I ask a lot of my students about this, and I've found that maybe half of them don't buy official releases.

The other half, however, does.

Overall, almost all the students I ask tell me that they hear bands for the first time on the internet (this excludes a lot of huge pop stuff like Avril, but most people bringing in Avril cds are bringing in the official releases).

[questcequecest?]

I download lots of music, live and studio.. but also make a point to buy what I really like. I don't think it's reasonable to purchase every cd I'm interested in hearing... especially at $20 a disc, when chances are, I'll only listen to it once or twice. Like I said, discs I listen to repeatedly usually get purchased. And like other folks, if I plan to see a band live, I'll wait and buy the disc at the show. For example, I bought the new JFJO disc last night for $15, great deal!

On another level, when I'm willing to go see an artist like Paul Simon for $100/ticket, I don't feel too guilty downloading his new album for free. Somewhere in there, he's making a buck or two. I guess I'm more willing/likely to be loyal about purchasing the music when it's a smaller artist who needs the support.

[AD]

if i could download concert tickets i would pay for every cd i listen to. but i can't afford both, so i download a lot of studio discs.

AD

[Ms.Huxtable]

Oh, I lied about not downloading studio albums. If the artist is dead or disgustingly rich I might.

[timouse]

i download mostly live stuff...when not, it's weird enough that it's not available anywhere else.

when i do buy a CD i prefer to buy right from the band & cut out the middleman.

[Northern Wish]

Old me:

Downloaded anything and everything I was interested in; Live, studio or otherwise. I couldn't afford any other way, but it did result in me seeing their shows, buying cds in the future (now) etc.....Of course cds were closer to $20 regularly back then.

New me:

Barely burn anything, except what friends pass along. My burner died at the same time that my income climbed a little, so now I buy just about any cd I am interested in.

I have to admit, I don't know which is better. A new album with liner notes is awesome, if the music is worth the money paid for it. But the next time I pick up a cd that is only 34 minutes and costs $15 I will be pissed.

S

Edited June 12, 2006 by Guest

[SevenSeasJim]

I only download music by artists that get their panties in a bunch about it. Take that Metallica.

[MarcO]

I have never downloaded anything but live shows that are otherwise commercially unavailable.

If Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey deserve not to be ripped off, I don't see how Paul McCartney should have a different standard.

Like everything else in life, if I cannot afford it, I do without. Downloading commercially available music is just stealing.

[questcequecest?]

If Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey deserve not to be ripped off, I don't see how Paul McCartney should have a different standard.

I tend to disagree, I think those artists have completely different standards. JFJO only charges me $15 to see a show, which leaves me with some cash to purchase a cd. Sir Paul would not be so generous as to offer admission for just $15... he'd want $250, plus $45 for a t-shirt.

[MarcO]

I wasn't trying to apply a direct value-for-money comparison to the two artists. Just that if it is not ok to download the new JFJO cd, why then would it be ok to download the new, say, U2 cd?

A musician is a musician is a musician.

[questcequecest?]

yeah, i understand what you're saying.. my point is the guilt factor, i suppose... i feel less guilty robbing from the rich.

personally though, i tend to download music as a sample, or preview... purchasing those which i like and would listen to on a regular basis.

[bradm]

MarcO, I'm going to disagree with you (and the record industry) about a key thing: making an unauthorized copy of something (e.g., a recording, or a computer program, or a movie) is not stealing. It's not stealing because no specific object is being removed from a person's possession. (If you've seen that ad with Alanis Morrissette coming into a teenager's room and taking stuff off the walls, you see this immediately: for me to steal something from you means you had it in your possession, and I took it away from you, so you no longer have it. Making a copy is a different thing entirely, because the original object is still in the original owner's possession.)

It's still wrong, though. Whether (or to what degree) the original creator of the work is harmed is another question.

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

I already posted that I do, in fact, copy studio releases, although I often purchase those same releases later.

That said, I have to comment on Brad's post. By that standard, it would never be possible to "steal" intellectual property; whether that be copyrighted music, a patented process for doing something, or a trademarked name. You could just copy that music, use the process, and call yourself whatever you want; despite the fact that the above is "owned" by someone else, and your use of it can cause that other person/party a real financial loss.

Intuitively, that just cannot be correct; unless you subscribe to the view that intellectual property cannot truly be owned.

[MarcO]

Forgive me but it seems like you are simply making a distinction between the theft of material items and the sharing of intellectual copyright. Which, with all respect, I do not mean this to be an aggressive retort, is quite obvious.

However, to be clear, I think the argument in question here is the usage of file-sharing sites to download otherwise commercially available for free in violation of the artists' wishes. That is an active and implied act of intent to acquire music for free and to say that there should be different standards in relation to the wealth of the artist(s) in question is disingenuous. imo.

[can-o-phish]

Thanks for all the feedback...I'd like to think that our "community" supports artists in whatever way we can...

Not that I thought that the small amount of recording I do is hindering any notable sales but with the quality of recording gear increasing and the prices decreasing and what is capable these days...

Good day sunshine bah bah bah

[bradm]

That said, I have to comment on Brad's post. By that standard, it would never be possible to "steal" intellectual property; whether that be copyrighted music, a patented process for doing something, or a trademarked name. You could just copy that music, use the process, and call yourself whatever you want; despite the fact that the above is "owned" by someone else, and your use of it can cause that other person/party a real financial loss.

Intuitively, that just cannot be correct; unless you subscribe to the view that intellectual property cannot truly be owned.

I subscribe to the view that copying intellectual property can't cause the creator a "real financial loss". (Do you subscribe to the view that deleting an unauthorized copy causes the creator a real financial gain? Remember, the way to undo a loss due to theft is simply to give the object back. What's the analogy for the "theft" that [you claim] is unauthorized copying?)

Consider, for example, the way record companies want services like iTunes to charge more for music that's downloaded more. They justify this using an old rule of economics: supply and demand. If the demand is high, they claim, the cost to the consumer should go up.

The problem is that the laws of supply and demand only apply to things that are in limited supply. Things that are infinitely copiable (such as digital music files) are not in limited supply.

Does an artist suffer if people make unauthorized copies instead of buying his/her work? Yes, because there is revenue the artist would have otherwise received (which isn't a loss, merely an unrealized gain). But what if the copier wouldn't have bought (or wouldn't have been able to buy) the work? You can't claim a loss for something you wouldn't have received anyway.

Aloha,

Brad