not at all. i think the point of music is to help make people feel good, and the easier it is to access music, the better it is for everyone. i do think that piracy wasn't the best way to fight back against greedy bands like metallica (FUCK YOU LARS YOU DIRTY PIECE OF SHIT,) but apps like spotify that benefit the artists and allow free streaming with ads are fantastic and help get the music to the people

I just rip songs off youtube. No regrets and I've enjoyed it so far.

If by "getting it for free," you mean stealing, then not really. But call it what it IS.

Quote from: Azumarill on January 11, 2015, 08:41:17 PM

not at all. i think the point of music is to help make people feel good, and the easier it is to access music, the better it is for everyone. i do think that piracy wasn't the best way to fight back against greedy bands like metallica (FUCK YOU LARS YOU DIRTY PIECE OF SHIT,) but apps like spotify that benefit the artists and allow free streaming with ads are fantastic and help get the music to the people

>spotify

>benifts artists

lmfao

it was my understanding that the artists got a cut?

what about the other streaming apps? pandora? rdio? do none of them help the artists?

As an artist, I realize how difficult it is to make music.

Not just the songs themselves, but the cover art; lyrics, liner notes, photography.
All of that, I did myself and it was a ton of work.

Do I get music for free as well? Yes. But I try to buy when I can.
I would LOVE to live off my music. tour the country, the world!

If by "getting it for free," you mean stealing, then not really. But call it what it IS.

You can't really steal music.  Taking credit for another artist's work (plagiarism) is one thing, but to say that taking sounds from one environment and playing them in another (which is what ripping/torrenting a song is) is stealing is ludicrous.

Quote from: Verbatim on January 11, 2015, 08:43:46 PM

If by "getting it for free," you mean stealing, then not really. But call it what it IS.

You can't really steal music.  Taking credit for another artist's work (plagiarism) is one thing, but to say that taking sounds from one environment and playing them in another (which is what ripping/torrenting a song is) is stealing is ludicrous.

It's stupid to be technical about it. There's no child pornography--just a series of pixels in assorted colors arranged in such a way that it LOOKS like child pornography.

That's how stupid that logic is.

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on January 11, 2015, 08:53:24 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on January 11, 2015, 08:43:46 PM

If by "getting it for free," you mean stealing, then not really. But call it what it IS.

You can't really steal music.  Taking credit for another artist's work (plagiarism) is one thing, but to say that taking sounds from one environment and playing them in another (which is what ripping/torrenting a song is) is stealing is ludicrous.

It's stupid to be technical about it. There's no child pornography--just a series of pixels in assorted colors arranged in such a way that it LOOKS like child pornography.

That's how stupid that logic is.

I think the comparison is bad, but I guess they are both "crimes" in world. I think deciding whether or not you care is totally up to the person. I don't think it makes anyone a bad person for not wanting to pay out the wazoo for all the music they want to listen to. If it's 1 or 2 songs by a popular artist, who cares, those mainstream artists have millions anyways. If it's an underground artist who is trying to make ends meet, it would be generous to pay for his or her albums. There are some artists that allow you to pay what you want. Meaning give nothing, or give more. I think trying to hold people accountable for whether or not they pirate music is probably one of the pettiest offences someone can be indicted for.

Also consider how the industry used to be. Before the internet it was run entirely by record companies. Those companies would choose what artists get to be played on the radio and who gets albums released. Now with the internet we have kind of an open source network. No one has to obey the regulations of those record companies. Some have argued that there is too much new music, and the record companies should gain the power again. Those people would be wrong, and inconsiderate of all the artists who aren't on a label.

Also consider that now that there is so much music, there is also a higher supply and the demand for some artists goes way down. I think that it is unrealistic to say that a music enthusiast such as myself should have to stretch my dollar so far that I can afford the hundreds of artists, and thousands of albums I listen to.

I don't think it lessens the appreciation or enjoyment at all, if you had to buy it first to be able to hear it then I'd say that would be a step backwards.

All, and I mean all, of the CD purchases I've made have been related to music that I heard first through youtube.
I don't buy a lot of music because it's just not really my thing, but when I have the money to buy the CD of an artist I love then I damn well do so. If the record companies had their way and all illegal music was taken off youtube, then they'd have lost out on about £140 of my money over the years.

But I don't buy the discs because of some moral obligation to getting assfucked by WMG, I buy it because I want to support the artist.

I totally agree about needing to hear music before you buy or download it. I don't know what the world would be like if music wasn't available on youtube to hear before hand.

As for people itt who use youtube for music. Using youtube as a main source of music is rather unwise imo. It is notorious for bad sound quality. I know that I can hear how bad it is on some videos.