Using P2P, TORRENTS, FTPs for sharing music. Is it 'wrong'? - what say you?

  On 4/14/2014 at 8:11 PM, missingsense said:

 

  On 4/14/2014 at 5:55 PM, eugene said:

@joyrex

 

well that's the point, i don't think that making music for a living is a good thing. music is not a job, it's supposed to be art. those who love doing will keep doing it whether they're rich or poor. there's always time to make music because it's just a part of life of a musician. whether it's 40 minutes a day or 4 hours...i don't think it's possible to quantify the quality of music as a function of time.

 

*internet hi-fives cryptowen*

so are you saying that making a living off something you love doing is a bad thing? or why the distinction with art? art is as much a tradeable commodity as anything else, food for the soul. I don't believe artists should be exploited just because they would be doing it anyway.

 

the part about time is bs too.. there's a craft that makes your ideas more structurally sound, you need time to develop that stuff. of course a big ego can start filling in a lack of ideas with bullshit skills. but to assume that's what automatically will happen is fucked up.

 

coincidentally, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged now lol.

 

i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done. the distinction is because art's value is hard to quantify, and i don't think it's naturally tradeable, it's just been raped into being tradeable. you don't exploit anyone by having a copy of his music, unless you presume that he's naturally supposed to make some money off it.

  On 4/14/2014 at 8:24 PM, VIII said:

 

  On 4/14/2014 at 12:40 PM, eugene said:

but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

THis is wrong on a few different levels... Hand packaged cdrs for instance, and the cost (time and labor also) of getting CDs duped/designed for an artist with a small following

 

i think paypal ing an artist five bucks and the torrenting his entire back catalog is kind of weird. maybe its okay for a well known act and not someone working in near obscurity

 

i too developed my music taste with years of downloading/listening to thousands of tracks, but actually buying the tape/cd/vinyl is what i try to do currently

 

the cds and any other physical format of music for that matter doesn't really have a reason to exists in the last 15 years, but it's a different discussion i guess. i was talking about making music in general as labor.

  On 4/14/2014 at 9:06 PM, apriorion said:

The answer to the original question: "Yes, obviously."

 

  On 4/14/2014 at 12:40 PM, eugene said:

NOT downloading music for free and perpetuating that monster called the music industry is wrong.

 

if the artist needs some cash for what basically is his/her hobby he should ask so explicitly, and if you feel like throwing a few bucks to support him then why not. but paying for actual cds and shit as if it were a product of labour ? that's kinda fucked up.

 

A "hobby"? For people who are very good at it and devote their lives to it, it's more than a mere hobby. Why shouldn't there be a professional industry to keep these people going? If that means selling physical copies or licensed digital copies, what's wrong with that? According to the line of thought here, many arts would similarly be considered a hobby, and they should pursue their work in the panhandler method you describe. But that's plainly ridiculous: should skilled teachers simply offer their insights and instruction and then they should basically beg for a "few bucks" to be thrown their way for their hobby? What about novelists? What about engineers? "Oh, sorry it took you so long to get the expertise you have with designing automobiles, but you shouldn't be paid for the designs you worked so hard to flesh out: if you want a few bucks, here I'll throw some at you to support you, but you gotta ask for it explicitly." Ridiculous.

it's wrong because you can't attach a value on something like that, it's the same for novelists, but the value of other professions you mention are very much quantifiable. music is not work in any way, if it seems like work then it isn't really music, in my view.

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis. I do buy albums when I have the means to do so, but p2p is an absolute god-send. I wouldn't know about ANY of the music I listen to now if it weren't for trackers. Am I a bad person because of it? Eh, I really don't care. I won't try to justify my torrenting except that I want to listen to more music without making an ultimatum concerning food v. flac.

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:20 AM, totemcrackerjack said:

torrent first, buy later.

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:20 AM, totemcrackerjack said:

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

isnt better to have the fan for life than not have that fan because he didn't buy the album?

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:02 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:20 AM, totemcrackerjack said:

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

Exactly. And I don't understand this whole angle that music is art and thus a professional market for it shouldn't exist. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

Food and recorded music are very different commodities, juss sayin. This is a pretty thought-provoking and humorous article from a few years ago on forced artificial resource scarcity, or as the author likes to acronym it, FARTS

I've pretty much gone full digital these days, still buying the occasional cd, thoughy now only to immediately rip it as it would seem - definitely a couple of recent purchases that have never actually been played as a cd, which feels kinda weird. Otherwise it's a pretty even split between buying stuff I know I already (or almost certainly will) like - from blerp, bandcamp, etc. - and trawling slsk and other channels for new listens. Trying to be as ethical of a patron of the arts as possible yet pragmatic with these sort of things.

Also as a kid from the 80s entering the wide world of music nothing chuffed me more than hearing a song I thought was cool on the radio then spending what little allowance I had on a cassette of the album only to find out that the rest is total shit. Yeah fuck you Escape Club.

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:09 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:02 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:20 AM, totemcrackerjack said:

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

Exactly. And I don't understand this whole angle that music is art and thus a professional market for it shouldn't exist. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

+1

  On 4/15/2014 at 3:02 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:20 AM, totemcrackerjack said:

For me, I torrent first, buy later. I'm very financially rocky at this point in my life, and can't really afford to pay for all the music I consume on a daily basis.

 

i'm curious, but why do you feel you deserve to consume all that music if you can't afford it? do you use the same philosophy when shopping for food? do you get more food than you can afford and just explain that you need it but can't afford it?

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that they think they deserve the music. Perhaps their actions imply as such, but nobody here has actually said they think that they deserve it. While I can't speak to the ethical righteousness of "torrent first, buy later", I do think that it leads to spending more money on music for certain people, so perhaps it could be argued from an ends-justify-the-means perspective.

The last albums I've downloaded (illegally) have been leaks, and I purchased them as soon as they came out (R Plus Seven and Ghettoville). I did also torrent Breaking Bad and one episode of Sherlock (bought most of the rest), and I'm not going to say that that was the right thing to do or anything, but I did it.

The reason I said deserve is because someone will still take something they can't afford.

Why else would you take something you can't afford legally?

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

I just don't think everyone who downloads music has a sense of entitlement to it, it's just that they don't really care whether they deserve it or not. I think these are different things. I mean, I don't feel like I deserve much of the music that I paid for, but I sure am glad I have it.

Foil explained it all already:

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:05 AM, eugene said:

i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done. the distinction is because art's value is hard to quantify, and i don't think it's naturally tradeable, it's just been raped into being tradeable. you don't exploit anyone by having a copy of his music, unless you presume that he's naturally supposed to make some money off it.

it's exploitative if you don't agree with the price someone charges, yet you take it anyway.

you need to look at the person behind the music. help flourish those that make your life better. such a basic courtesy.

i do download stuff, but most of the stuff is by dead people or very rich people. im not going to rationalize it though. it's thievery. i hope someday i make enough money to be on the up and up

Buy first, torrent later IMO.

Yes, I always buy if I can but sometimes it's just not available to purchase... Steinvord is a classic case.

  On 4/15/2014 at 7:57 AM, manmower said:

Buy first, torrent later IMO.

actually did this once, paid for some grouper album on boomkat but went on what.cd to download it because it was much easier and faster.

  On 4/15/2014 at 6:36 AM, missingsense said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 2:05 AM, eugene said:

i don't mind musicians making a living from music just not the way it's been traditionally done. the distinction is because art's value is hard to quantify, and i don't think it's naturally tradeable, it's just been raped into being tradeable. you don't exploit anyone by having a copy of his music, unless you presume that he's naturally supposed to make some money off it.

it's exploitative if you don't agree with the price someone charges, yet you take it anyway.

 

you need to look at the person behind the music. help flourish those that make your life better. such a basic courtesy.

 

but you see there is something distorted about how it works, a musicians makes a tune spending particular amount of time and energy on it but the labels charge money for every copy, and expect people to pay an unlimited amount of money for what was a limited effort.

  On 4/15/2014 at 6:28 AM, fiznuthian said:

Foil explained it all already:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 11:58 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/15/2014 at 7:57 AM, manmower said:

Buy first, torrent later IMO.

actually did this once, paid for some grouper album on boomkat but went on what.cd to download it because it was much easier and faster.

 

I do it all the time, to get files for stuff I buy on vinyl for instance, or even for CDs. Why waste my time and wear out my CD drive when someone has already done a perfect rip.

I don't buy the 'try before you buy' excuse anyway, with all the streaming options available there's hardly any need to download a local copy of a release if you're just checking it out.

Well..... Lemme just say that Hasty Boom Alert changed my life, mang; an mp3 which I downloaded from a Hotline server back in ze day. After that, I went to a record shop and bought a load o' Mike P. If it weren't for that avenue of discovery, I could possibly be posting on tiestoisdabomb.com forums or whatever.

Art is not an experience that can directly sustain physical life. On the other hand, food, most definitely is. Food is something that possibly makes sense to trade a definite amount of effort (converted into moneys), into a definite amount of sustenance. Art, is ever-giving, until the work is destroyed or no longer accessible. Art is perpetual motion of magic.

People who download whole back-catalogs of an artist and just let it sit (people who DL and listen once, and the like)- they are not fans of the artist, nor do they care about the artist or have a connection. But the people who feel a connection with an artist and are fans of their work-- these people are different. Even if a fan pirates 100% of an artist's music, what the fan accomplishes from being a true believer in the artist's output, is something that money cannot buy.

Fans spread the beneficial vibez (for whatever emotional/spiritual purpose) to those who they share the music with and to those who they interact with (like on this forum). Through this communication, an artist's vision is spread. It is this spreading which I believe is most important with art; this spreading of Vision and Heart is an artist's highest purpose.

The modern world has taught us to keep the goods for only those deserving; those willing to cough up the cash. When it comes to art, The System realizes that without this arbitrary rule, there is no reason for The System to exist. The System does not exist to help artists- all these copyright laws and money involved- this shit exists to HOLD BACK the artist (and uphold values of greed), for without restraint, an artist's vision can spread fast. And this applies to all arts, as in the end- at the highest level of execution- everything in our lives becomes an art (food, learning, transport, body movement, etc.). By holding back artists, The System can replace a free-flow from those who actually have true aesthetic sense (the ease of flow of energy)...-- The System can replace this True Sense, with an arbitrary sense. And so- THIS IS A POWER ISSUE. By creating arbitrary rules to control, people who have no fucking sense whatsoever, can pick and choose art, to pretend that they have sense. This is exactly why the world is fucked-- because fucked aesthetics have been released into the world, by people with no True Sense; no True Heart.

These weak-hearted people released and enforce arbitrary bullshit rules into the modern world, because without these bullshit rules and bullshit money, they know that the world would ultimately be taken over by the people who should truly rule it-- artists of the heart (i.e. people with actual SENSE). At a very basic level, people with high aesthetics and True Sense (mind+body+heart connection understanding and being able to use related tools for maximum effect), make people with no sense, feel fucking stupid. No sense people feel stupid, because they just "don't get it". They don't get why feces in your eyes is a bad idea, they don't get why lemonade would be less appealing with added barnacle shells, they don't get why you shouldn't swing your newborn child around your head like a helicopter.

So going back to music piracy, I am all for it, because it has the potential to create fans, and fans are potential cosmic soldiers of light, who can help others experience something that actually came from the Heart-- instead of the mainstream bullshit contrived machine-made sonic-heartfuck that only has the intent of perpetuating The System of emotional/spiritual oppression; spreading to the masses the idea that greed is higher than Love.

As can be seen even in the pop music world-- good music with actual sense- this music will live on, through its true fans; spreading its magic through time and space. As for the forgotten hit albums-- these made money, but were probably of no use to True Sense in the long-run. There is a reason why classical music has lived for hundreds of years.

Alas..... a song cannot be remembered forever. But what can live on, are the vibez that spread to the people who experienced the music, who changed their Hearts and Minds due to the music, who acted in new ways from the music-- who helped make the world a better place because of the music.

Good music is magic. I believe good music should be spread; payment or pirated. And if the music spreads to tons of people...-- any artist who can create such music- being able to create for the world and truuuly connect with it and affect it positively... this is something that album sales alone cannot create. Being able to create such works is one of the highest privileges of humanity. Getting paid for that-- well, that's like having sex with your one true love on cocaine--- yah, it's fucking awesome, but at the same time, the coke is a slight insult to the epic exchange of energies that is going on behind the scenes. That coke+sex=seemingly one experience; but actually separate experiences happening at the same time. Same with getting paid for music.

Technology has advanced beyond the possibility of intellectual property for anything but science (exactly the one thing where it's clear to everyone how and where intellectual property is harmful). This in itself isn't good or bad, but, as things are right now, some people are benefiting from it and some are actually being harmed. Sadly the Universals and Virgins of the world don't look like they're going down anytime soon. The petty feudalism of the indie scene might, though, which in some ways is nice.

As for what I do, mostly I take stuff out from the library and copy it. Seeing as how taxpayer's money goes to author's rights societies to pay for private copying rights (at least where I am; dunno about other countries), I think it's fair game. At one point, there was even a tax on all writable-writing media from printers to mobile phones to cover for private copying rights (which makes me wonder about why the main author's rights society was so upset about piracy, really).

When I really really like something and it's readily available I do buy it (I do have physical copies of Warp classics, etc.) and also really underground stuff too, but I barely have enough money to keep eating and pay the bills these days, so I haven't been buying anything as of lately.

Feels a lot better buying it, provided as much of it goes directly to the artist as possible.