I was reading about a site called nabster, but I feel that what this company is doing is wrong. They are stealing the work of others and giving it away for free. I am not a musician, but I personally think if these muscians create music that we love, it is a form of exploitation to steal it from them - if we can. Same goes for movies.
2006-11-30 15:10:17 · 14 answers · asked by EM-water2 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
No.
First of all calling it stealing is a misnomer. It is negative spin put out by the recording industry. Stealing is when you take something from someone, and deprive them of it. If you download some music that you were not going to buy anyway, you have not cost the artist anything.
Let me give you an example. In 2003, I wanted to make a dance mix for my car. I used some software called Mixmeister to produce a beat mix recording. I downloaded a bunch of music that I used to listen to, and used some of it to make a mix for my personal amusement. If I had purchased every song I downloaded it would have probably cost me $500 or so. Often I would download tracks that I thought was the right one, only to find it was not. Some of the tracks I already owned.
If downloading was not an option, I would never have even attempted to make this mix for myself. So did my mix CD cost the recording industry anything? No. Of course not. But technically, I broke the law and stole from them.
Let me give you another example. When Eminem first came out I heard one of his songs on MTV. I then downloaded a bunch of his other music to see if I liked it. I liked it and ended up buying several DVDs and every album he released.
In another example I used to use an illegal download site that is now closed. It had a facility to suggest songs I might like. Since I had downloaded some Radiohead it suggested a band I had never heard called Muse. I later went on to purchase three Muse albums and some additional Radiohead. I would never have even known about Muse, were it not for this download site.
When it comes to downloading the reality is that record companies are out of touch and unwilling to get behind new technology. If they had been looking out for fans rather than their personal greed, they would have cashed in on the whole Internet downloading thing years earlier.
Let us also not forget the reality here. You talk about the poor artists losing money. But that is just a line put out by record companies. If you download a song, you are not hurting anyone. The only time you are hurting an artist or a record company is if you ONLY download stuff and never buy it. If everyone did this, there would be a problem. But most people I know who download, always buy the CD or DVD if it is good.
2006-11-30 15:17:33 · answer #1 · answered by ZCT 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is a tough question. I dont think that everyone should be able to get music for free but I do believe that the record industry needs to wake up. There is a huge demand for MP3 music right now but the market is all screwed up. Due to the recording industry's paranoia, you often have to buy your MP3 player according to the site you are going to get music from. That is akin to picking out a cd player that can only play music from certain record stores. Also many artists and one hit wonders do not like the idea of paying per song because they can no longer put one or two good songs on a cd anymore and expect the consumer to buy the whole cd when the rest of the songs are lame. The other problem is that record stores for years have charged insane prices for cd's and then had a limited selection at best. Some even had mark ups for "special order" cd's. So yes, your right. Artist do deserve to get paid for their hard work but it seems like everyone is getting way to greedy and the consumer is often at a disadvantage. This makes it tempting for many to try and get their music free.
2006-11-30 15:30:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Watch Free Movies Online
2016-05-20 02:25:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are from the FBI or CIA then making someone answer and arresting them is entrapment!!! Many downloads are public licence and free. Some artists encourage advertising by releasing free downloads from their own websites. So it isn't all unethical. Is downloading a song - listening to it a couple of times and then deleting it any different to getting it out from the library and then returning it? Neither are paid for. Should hearing music on the radio be illegal as we dont have to pay for it? What if someone downloads a song that is no longer available on record or cd? Or what if downloading one song then leads to the person buying an album or more?
It is just as unethical/illegal to borrow a CD from a friend to listen to, or copying music from the radio, or recording movies to video and lending them to friends, but the majority of people find it acceptable.
Napster in itself is ethical if it tries to keep theft or piracy from happening, it is the users of the program that are unethical if they share copyright material (especially for money).
2006-11-30 15:28:45 · answer #4 · answered by dishirai 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say only that some artists and musicians had spoken out about downloading music and they said they do not even earn much or at all for the downloads. Therefore there is no clear answer. The download availability from Ipod, Napstar, and other vendors are not up to date as it should be due to cataloguing. I would not be questioning being ethical yet or not.
2006-11-30 15:25:07 · answer #5 · answered by rainbowpiggie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is COMPLETELY stripping artists of their credit and their paychecks--sorry if you don't believe it, but most artists do to get certain percentages of their album sales. No buying an album? The artist gets no money. The artist and record company have no idea that you are a "fan", and if they don't think the band has a big enough fanbase, it will affect future record releases and tours. If you *really* like a band, why NOT buy their albums?
That being said--morals are different from person to person, and from country to country. And who acts according to what's "ethical" 100% of the time?
I think it's ok to download if you plan on buying something if you like it, or deleting it if you hate it.
2006-12-01 00:56:56 · answer #6 · answered by Multi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Frankly, no.
Musicians have a lot less value then nurses, firemen, etc. But look at the insane amount of money they make. They don't need all of it. More people should start stealing from them, so they start making the money they deserve-considerably less.
2006-11-30 15:18:58 · answer #7 · answered by nsg_2006 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The Music and Movie Industries have been gouging us for decades. We finally got some payback.
2006-11-30 15:19:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The correct answer is: Yes, it's not right. But I'm not going to buy their music anyway, so it might as well be free.
2006-11-30 15:28:13 · answer #9 · answered by Jack 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Musicians don't make money off CD's, they make money off of concerts and merchendise. The only people making money off of CD's are the record execs. If you want to help them buy more Tshirts.
2006-11-30 15:24:29 · answer #10 · answered by vampire_kitti 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋